Defenders of Traditional and Biblical Marriage are not the only ones who have it wrong, there is a lot of misunderstanding about Traditional and Biblical Marriage by Marriage Equality advocates as well. Traditional and Biblical Marriage are not synonymous of one another. Traditional Marriage is something upheld in Western culture and society that stems from the Medieval era, argued during the Protestant Reformation, solidified by the Puritans, celebrated in the Victorian period, and then epitomized by mid-20th century Western culture. Biblical Marriage refers to the examples of marriage that exist in the Bible, often spoken of in theological terms. The concepts should not be confused for one another since Traditional Marriage did not exist in the Bible and Biblical Marriage does not translate into modern culture fairly. By today’s moral and ethical standards, many of the examples of marriage in the Bible – Old and New Testament – are considered an injustice to women and children, and thus are very difficult to transplant into today’s cultural practice of marriage.

I often hear Marriage Equality advocates transplanting Biblical marriage into today’s cultural context which is ill fitting and doesn’t necessarily translate so easily cross-culturally. I assume the reasoning goes, “If gay marriage opponents are defending Traditional and Biblical Marriage synonymously, it’s imperative to point out the absurdity of marriage in the Bible with special attention to Old Testament examples.” Gay marriage opponents who often represent some expression of the Christian faith dig the hole deeper by behaving ignorantly about the historical accuracies of both Traditional and Biblical Marriage. Neither side does justice in helping culture and society in understanding either Traditional or Biblical Marriage, which in studying could provide articulate answers to today’s cultural wars concerning marriage.

A video by MrsBettyBowers.com, described as America’s Best Christian, satirically uses Old Testament marriage to defend marriage equality and justice. Though entertaining, I wasn’t amused by the inaccuracies of marriage. I understand that anti-gay marriage opponents often use the reverse extreme so this sort of satire seeks to balance the absurdity of the arguments in defense of Traditional or Biblical Marriage. However, if it was done a little more intelligently, we could possibly have some genuine discussion.

As a brief example from the video, in the Old Testament if a man raped a woman he was to marry her. In our modern mindset, we conclude that forced marriage, especially of a rape victim, is harshly unjust. It’s understandable why Marriage Equality advocates would use this example to make a case for how Biblical Marriage was more often that not one big act of injustice, thus Americans should not continue in the vein of inequality. However, we should not impose our modern Western thinking of justice and equality on ancient culture. Rightfully so, women having an economic value and treated as property is considered unfair in modern culture. However, in many ancient cultures this was the normal and acceptable way of life.

The reason for marriage under this circumstance was not to punish rape victims, but to provide justice and economic protection for women. Raped women could not marry another man, because their economic value was diminished. If rape victims did not wed, she could not survive economically. A rape victim with a diminished value had few opportunities to live a sustainable life, often remaining unwed and turning to prostitution just to live. It was the intention of the law for a man to wed a woman he took sexual advantage of to deliver justice to rape victims in an attempt to provide care by avoiding relegating victims to the worse place in that society.

The example is not accurately one of injustice since ancient society and culture deemed forced marriage of a rape victim as act of justice and equality for victims. A more accurate lesson from this example of Biblical marriage is that marriage can be an act of justice for individuals. Marriage, as seen in this Bible example, is concerned for the legal and economic rights of people. Marriage attempted to deliver justice and equality in hope of preventing injustice and abuse. Most of all, marriage was never intended to segregate and make victims out of others, but to save individuals from being exiled to the fringes and shadows of society.

In the past, Rick Warren has taken issue with the redefinition of marriage. He has said time and time again, “For 5,000 years, marriage has been defined by every single culture and every single religion — this is not a Christian issue. Buddhist, Muslims, Jews — historically, marriage is a man and a woman… I just don’t believe in the redefinition of marriage.” [1] The issue is that our current definition of marriage (that is the Western, Christian notion of the marriage institution in the U.S.) has not existed for 5,000 years, let alone existed across cultural or religious boundaries. Unfortunately, it’s impossible to cover every single ancient culture and religion, but we can understand marriage and family as it pertains to Christianity. We will also notice that despite Warren’s attempt to entice Christians to believe marriage is unchanging, marriage has changed by definition and practice throughout history.

5,000 years ago would take us back to Sumerian culture in Ancient Mesopotamia and Babylonia. The Old Testament book of Genesis refers to Sumeria as the land of Shinar (Gen. 10:10). There existed several forms of marriage and the family unit perhaps due to overpopulation, including celibate wives, marrying (much like our understanding of adopting) the bride’s brothers to form a family clan, bringing in slaves as part of the family unit, and even nuclear families. Families could be a fratriarchy where the eldest brother ruled the home. For the most part, marriage was a commercial arrangement though the groom also received payment or gifts for marrying. Unlike today, polygamy was possible up to two wives, wives were as young as 12 years of age, and grooms were well into their thirties since commonality and companionship was not as important. [2]

Though marriage was defined, as Warren suggests, “by a man and a woman” marriage and family in Sumeria was also defined by a man, a woman, her children, and her brothers; a man, a woman, and another woman; a man, a woman, their children, and their slaves, and so forth. There was absolutely no understanding of Western, Christian marriage between one man and one woman. Even if we took the time to investigate every culture and religion in history, our concept of marriage would come thousands of years later, after Christ’s death at the end of the Medieval era, argued during the Protestant Reformation, solidified by the Puritans, celebrated in the Victorian period, and then epitomized by 1950s television, film, and culture.

[1] Beliefnet Video, Accessed 5/19/2009
[2] Life in the ancient Near East, 3100-332 B.C.E., Daniel C. Snell, p. 51-54

In a series of post, I’ll be providing a brief history of sex and marriage exploring some of the myths in Christianity. Religion should not detach sexuality and marriage from it’s historical origins and monopolize relationships. Religion, specifically Christianity, has never had the upper hand on marriage or family despite that it would like nothing more than to believe it has. Statements like, “Marriage has always been one way,” “The role of the father is this and the role of the mother is that,” and “God has outlined what marriage is suppose to be” are all lacking serious history. I’m not certain the Church can offer much unless it realizes its own struggles with the issues and places these topics back into its historical context. Sexuality and marriage is not ahistorical though Christianity would often like to pretend it is for the sake of upholding homophobia in the church and Western, traditional family values – which are anything but authentically traditional.

The Church historically has struggled with sex and sexuality presenting at best an anti-sexual vision throughout history. For example, the early church went to such extremes to be sexually chaste that some severed their own genitals for the sake of Christ (e.g. Origen, Melito of Sardis) [1] [2]. Asceticism was so ingrained in the faith, that rogue penises and testes didn’t stand a chance against Christian belief and practice [3]. Men would go to extremes to prevent sexual sin until the First Council of Nicaea prohibited castration in the 4th Century [4], even more reason to cite the Nicene Creed.

Sexuality throughout the time of Jesus through the Medieval period was solely for the purpose of procreation for the sake of nationalism – citizens creating more citizens by sexual reproduction. Sex for any other reason both in or outside of marriage was considered sinful, specifically adulterous. In Rome, being married and having no children could also be considered adulterous. Homosexual, oral, anal, and masturbatory sex were all considered sodomy because they were unnatural, or unable to produce children to create a bigger society. Sexual sin always came down to reproduction to support economic and political nationalism even to the point of restricting all sexual positions except the most natural, what we now call the missionary position. Of course, all sex was to be performed within the confines of marriage be it by purchasing the bride, kidnapping the bride, or finding one who would consent or at least have her guardian’s consent. The early and medieval church also made no distinction between a male and female who lived together and who were consummating their relationship. These couples were considered married. What seemed to matter most was the national population. The marriage unit was looked to as the corner stone for building stronger nations, which places both Jesus and Paul’s statements on marriage and divorce in a different context than the traditional myth that marriage was all about love and devotion [5] [6]. This was not Jesus nor Paul’s cultural context. Here are some possible alternative meanings:

Matthew 19: When Jesus is questioned by the religious about divorce, many men divorced habitually to gain economic and political gain in society. With marriage and children came economic inheritances which was very advantageous for men. Adding to the growing definition of adultery, Jesus warns that divorcing for such gain and remarrying is adulterous or not holding to the original purpose of marriage [7]. Furthermore, I’m suggesting that Jesus’ view on marriage was concerned with a social injustice against women who weren’t able to survive unless married. It is unclear though if Jesus is referring to the original purpose for marriage (exemplified in Adam and Eve) as a relational commitment, procreation, or both. I’d suspect the former is where Christ places the emphasis accenting love, since the culture overemphasized marriage and children as a commodity in hope of climbing the political, social, and economic ladders which fueled divorce.

1 Corinthians 7: Paul in no way was trying to outline a theology for marriage, but simply answering a complex question by the Corinthian church and doing ethics. If we digest the counsel actually given by Paul, his primary objective seems to be in reminding the church what is most important given the immediate situation (i.e. the Lord’s quick return in their lifetimes), not a hard moral statement favoring certain expressions of marriage between male and female. Paul tries to balance the tension between several cultural realities, marriage for societal advantage, mixed faith marriages, and asceticism for spiritual gain. Pauline theology is filled with the theme of grace and his answers are no different here, “I have no command from the Lord, but I give a judgment as one who by the Lord’s mercy is trustworthy. Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for you to remain as you are.” Only to marriage does he speak a command, reiterating what Christ said in Matthew except he focuses more so on women than on men. As we already addressed, for men divorce and remarriage came with advantages, but for women divorce created disadvantages and injustices. Paul follows Christ in encouraging and emphasizing commitment above any other type of personal gain [8].

The strict religious views on sexuality and marriage found the ending Medieval period and Catholic church in a heap of hypocrisy. Prostitution, concubines, divorce, and various sexual sin was rampant inside and outside of the church with clergy even visiting brothels and obtaining concubines [9]. The anti-sexual religious views on sexuality and marriage did little for sustaining a moral society, but in some ways fostered further societal immorality which threatened the very nationalism it was suppose to protect and nurture. In response, the Catholic church in the Middle Ages solidified marriage as something sacred, making matrimony a holy sacrament of the church for two consenting individuals at least 7 yrs in age [9] [10]. Sacred matrimony was intended to deter immorality along with harsh punishments, including death, for acting against what was sacred [11]. The Reformers thought much more needed to be done against sex and in support of marriage, providing a revised theology of sexuality and marriage, but not any less strict than their predecessors.

References
[1] NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine
[2] Virgins of God: the making of asceticism in late antiquity, Susanna Elm, p. 122-123
[3] Ibid.
[4] NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils
[5] Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage, Stephanie Coontz
[6] Sex, Dissidence and Damnation: Minority Groups in the Middle Ages, Richards, Jeffrey, p. 34
[7] Thou Shalt Not Love: What Evangelicals Really Say to Gays, Patrick M. Chapman, Ph.D., p. 109
[8] NICNT: The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Gordon D. Fee, p. 266-290
[9] Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage, Stephanie Coontz
[10] The History of the European Family: Family life in early modern times, David I. Kertzer, Marzio Barbagli, p. 126
[11] Sex and Canon Law: Handbook of Medieval Sexuality, Vern L. Bullough and James A. Brundage, pp. 33-50

Original posted to my old blog August 2007:

Ah, completion. Everyone wants to be completed by someone else. It’s a romantic ideal to believe that out there in the universe is someone who will complete us. We believe that something is missing within us as people that can only be found when we meet the perfect somebody. If the person were engaging doesn’t happen to be someone we find ourselves completed by, we seek someone else who can complete us more fully. We are often on the constant search to find the one person who fulfills us completely.

We rarely consider that everyone we meet, everyone we come into contact with, everyone we have any sort of relationship with has value and worth apart from completing us. Instead, we’d prefer to seek relationships on the basis of how we feel fulfilled. It’s cliche, but it’s reality. We want to say or at least think, “You complete me.” Sounds cheesy, huh?

But everyone we meet adds value and worth to our existence. Anyone can bless you by who they are and what they have to offer. Whenever two hearts collide and soul partnerships are formed, no matter if its for a brief period in time or for a lifetime, we add something to one another. We do not add something to each other, because we are incomplete. Rather, we amplify what’s already completed in someone else by what’s already completed in us.

Relationships, including marriage, shouldn’t be about selfish completion. It’s rather narcissistic when somebody desires a relationship to complete their self or fill what’s missing. Possibly, many relationships and marriages end when one partner senses that they are no longer completed by the other partner who once completed them. Was it their job to complete them in the first place?