Christian Myths on Sex and Marriage: Pt. I

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