Getting married and then later changing one’s mind to seek a divorce in order to get married again with a more suitable or compatible partner seems to be quite appealing in this current age. Despite the pain that is often associated with divorce, apparently, it is an option that is too easily entertained. Could it be that one’s worldview or definition of marriage or love affects his/her ability to enjoy marriage as a lasting experience; or to what extent is a proper definition of marriage can provide the ground for married people to remain married for better or worse? Such is the question that I would like to address in this paper. I would like to start with the prevalent conception of marriage as adopted, consciously or unconsciously, in both Christian and secular context and compare it with that of CS Lewis as expressed in his book Mere Christianity. Finally, I would like to argue that whether marriage is governed by the state or governed the church, it is nonetheless a godly institution.
One’s worldview is determinant. It affects how one interprets reality whether it is concerned with matters such as life, death and everything in between. Our worldview helps us distinguish between what is important from what is not, what is useful from what is not. Our worldview is partly a mix between nature and nurture and their influence in the shaping of who we are as individual, especially in the context of our relationship with others and how we make decisions. In that regard, the predominant view or conception about marriage may be responsible for the statistics in relation to divorce that we are witnessing in society. It is not surprising to observe that marriage was understood to be more sacred in past centuries than it is the case today; and, that is not without consequences on society. But this is a different topic that I cannot address here. There was a time where morality was understood as objective and binding because it was grounded in God. As God was edged out of the equation, one had to rely on bodily motion, feelings, or usefulness to appreciate the ‘rightness’ or the ‘wrongness’ of one’s thoughts and actions. Secular views about marriage followed the same pattern as attractiveness, feeling of love and utility became a standard by which marriage relationship is assessed for people to decide about staying or leaving it.
It is obvious that approaching marriage in this framework puts the focus on the self. Therefore, one is inclined to ask questions such as: what’s in it for me or what am I getting out of it? It makes sense, for CS Lewis addressing the context of the first sin, said “the moment you have a self at all is a possibility of putting yourself first”. Knowing about that possibility, God revealed His will about marriage, which is the union of two distinct people, male and female, becoming one flesh; a single organism as Lewis puts it. Lewis refers to the analogy of a lock and a key as one mechanism, which is a fact that can be used to describe a married couple. Such a union does not always portray the reality of modern marriage where each of the persons involved wants to have their own separate space. There is nothing wrong with a person retaining some old habits in the context of a marriage as long as they do not hinder the marriage relationship itself. It looks to me that some unlearning is necessary for people stepping into a marriage relationship; Especially when their wisdom about marriage is drawn from Hollywood or cinema. Indeed, people can be shaped by the media in such a way that they no longer think for themselves. They just go with the flow.
In this vein, Lewis talks about how people who are so focused on the emotion that love represents that they fail to consider any other possible reason that would require a couple to stay together when the initial thrill or love has faded away. I have been married for 15 years. The first five years of my marriage were very difficult. I assume it was more so for my wife. It didn’t take long for us to double-guessing if we had the right partner as the love that we once experienced while dating started to become dim. In my definition of marriage at that time, love is the glue that binds people together. But love for me was just a feeling and an emotion that has to do with sex. And if at some point, another person seems more loving or represents a better picture of the love ideal, it becomes then natural to move on to a new relationship and so on. I am glad that I didn’t take that route. But I recognize that there is an enormous pressure on the shoulders of people inside marriage to keep the thrill alive in order to justify their staying together. Unfortunately, the thrill cannot be sustained continuously and thus the end-result may be a split accompanied with the sorrow and brokenness that are inevitable. While some feelings are good in themselves, nevertheless, they must be kept under our own control so that we do not violate the promise made to one another. Lewis posits that: “if the idea of ‘being in love’ is the only reason for remaining married, it really leaves no room for marriage as a contract or promise at all. If love is the whole thing, then the promise can add nothing to the marriage; and if it adds nothing it should not be made”.
But is it true that the promises or vows are just a formality? Is it true that they add nothing to the marriage? If a post-modern society was not a utopia, the answer would be yes because language could not ultimately convey truth or meaning. Therefore, the one making the promise would have a different interpretation from the other parties (future spouse, in-laws, audience, etc.) hearing it. In such a context, talking about any other things would be as meaningless as the promise itself. Yet, that’s not how people feel when a promise is broken. And most people would agree that there is a virtue in keeping promises, namely justice. Of course, that does not mean that there are no circumstances that would impose themselves on someone to shun from keeping a promise. Indeed, there are instances where divorce may be a necessity. Even the Bible agrees on one particular instance. Lewis is right in his approach that feelings are not to be the driving force in the decision-making process for the Christian marriage. As a matter of fact, the Bible teaches that one needs to master feelings for not everything that we feel or desire we must pursuit. The first time a man murdered another man in the history of mankind implied a lack of self-control. For God told Abel (Genesis 4:7) that sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it. The art of mastering one’s feelings seems to be not much practiced in the context of marriage and other areas of life. Nevertheless, I agree with Lewis that Christians should not expect non-Christians to adopt their views and behavior about marriage. There he makes a difference between marriage that is governed by the state and marriage that is governed by the church.
While I agree that Christians should not force their definition of marriage on non-Christians and make divorce difficult for everyone, I disagree on the difference that is established between the aforementioned types of marriage. I also disagree that Christians should not influence lawmakers to design legislations that follow God’s idea of marriage. I am inclined to think that marriage is God’s idea not human beings and I believe that Lewis shares also that conviction. If marriage is God’s institution it ought to be done God’s way, namely between a man and a woman who become one flesh as joined by God. Differentiating between marriage governed by the church and marriage governed by the state may imply different definitions for marriage while there can only be one as define by the designer of marriage in the beginning. In addition, civil governments are in a sense an extension of God’s governance on earth, as long as they uphold justice. Therefore, the state is subjected to God as the ultimate authority. While it is true that such a state of affairs is strongly opposed by some people in authority, it is nevertheless the reality. It follows, that Christians have the responsibility to be a prophetic voice in society to advocate about what is true and what is right. God’s definition of marriage is what is best for mankind and, therefore, it must be promoted and encouraged, in a spirit of love and tolerance.
At the end of the day, one’s definition of marriage does not affect just the married couple but society as a whole. Who is not affected by dysfunctional families; children seeing their parents walking away from home because they don’t feel the love that attracted their parents to one another at the first place? I am inclined to think that love is a choice, In Biblical days, one can observe that people were promised to one another by their parents and sometimes without even seeing or having met their future spouse. While this may not be the best way for two adults to start a relationship, but one cannot help noticing that for the people that got into those arranged marriage love was a choice that they made rather than just a feeling they entertained. I like it when Lewis distinguishes between love and ‘being in love’; the former is a deep unity, maintained by the will and deliberately strengthened by habit; reinforced by the grace which both partners ask, and receive, from God. A proper definition of marriage and love is a determining factor in the commitment that the people involved in the relationship will consent.
