is<\/em> the institution of marriage, anyway?\u201d \u00a0The essential points of her critique were (1) marriage is more of an evolution than an institution, insofar as the forms of marriage vary and always have varied historically and culturally, and (2) the \u201cinstitution\u201d of marriage most cultural conservatives defend has been the basis for the oppression of women, the unmarried (single mothers especially), children born outside of wedlock, and generally anyone who does not conform to the preferred vision of domestic bliss. \u00a0This post is about the nature of marriage, from a Christian perspective; the next post will be about the goodness and the import of marriage thus understood.<\/p>\nA Stradivarius is a violin made from by a member of the Stradivari family, especially Antonio Stradivari (1644-1737), out of spruce, willow, and maple, with some minerals and a varnish such as vernice bianca<\/em> (gum arabic, honey, and egg white) likely used to treat the wood. \u00a0The strings, of course, are made of horse hair.<\/p>\nOn a merely material level, a Stradivarius is nothing special. \u00a0Its elements are crude. \u00a0Wood, egg white, and horse hair. \u00a0Yet these very ordinary materials are fashioned together in extraordinary ways. \u00a0If the whole violin were made of spruce, then it would not transmit sound in the way it does. \u00a0The ways in which the elements merge together, the wood and the minerals and the varnish, are based in the physics of sound and materials: the density of the wood shapes the quality of the sound, the tightness of the string and the size and shape of the chamber craft its resonance, and so on. \u00a0And the elements and the exquisite way in which they are grafted and crafted together, are teleological; they serve a purpose, in this case the creation of music.<\/p>\n
In the traditional Christian view, marriage is similar in at least three respects. \u00a0First, marriage is the uniting of elements that are fundamentally, naturally and beautifully different.<\/strong> The Christian tradition has not seen male\/female differences as merely <\/em>cultural constructs. \u00a0While there are always cultural factors in how masculinity and femininity are expressed and valued, there are always also natural \u2014 which is to say created<\/em> and ordained<\/em>, purposeful <\/em>and beautiful<\/em> \u2014 factors distinguishing male\/female and masculinity\/femininity.<\/p>\nIn fact, this view of sex and gender differences is inevitable given the Christian understanding of human nature. \u00a0Unlike several Greek schools of thought, for instance, the Jewish-Christian tradition understands the body and the spirit as indissolubly united. \u00a0(This is a bit of a simplification for space purposes, but correct enough as a generalization.) \u00a0The Christian scriptures look forward to a bodily resurrection \u2014 and to \u201cthe redemption of our bodies\u201d (Rom 8:23) \u2014 because we would not be ourselves, who we are<\/em>, apart from our bodies. \u00a0Ergo, given the bodily differences (which today we would understand to include especially hormonal and other neural differences) between the sexes, other differences are inevitable. \u00a0While we do have freedom to shape our character over time, we begin with fundamental differences, and those differences are intended by God and an essential part of the mystery of God\u2019s will for our lives. \u00a0This does not mean that all women must be \u201cfeminine\u201d as any one culture understands that term \u2014 indeed, a culture may understand the \u201cfeminine\u201d in a false and oppressive manner, and disentangling the cultural from the natural is no easy matter \u2014 but it does mean that there are natural differences underneath, and those differences (not necessarily the cultural roles) are worth acknowledging, affirming and celebrating.<\/p>\nSecond, in marriage the different elements of male and female unite in a complementary, creative and purposeful way<\/strong>. \u00a0We are irreducibly relational creatures. \u00a0We are all created for relationship \u2014 relationship with God, with friends and community, and in many cases with a spouse and children. \u00a0Now, something important needs to be stated here: not all people are meant for marriage. \u00a0The Christian tradition teaches very clearly that some are called to remain single in order to pursue the calling God has for them. \u00a0The rest, however, and the vast majority, are meant to unite with a person of the opposite sex and become \u2018one flesh\u2019.<\/p>\nIn the Christian view, then, it\u2019s nonsense to say \u201cI need to find myself before I get married.\u201d \u00a0It may be necessary to gain a stronger sense of what you believe and value before you make a lifelong commitment. \u00a0But for those who are meant for marriage, you will not find yourself<\/em> in the fullest and most meaningful sense until you find yourself married. \u00a0You will not find your greatest fulfillment, your fullness, until you are made whole with another into one flesh. \u00a0We tend to think of ourselves in atomic terms, as particles bouncing around in a void. \u00a0Yet we\u2019re more like a wave\/particle duality; we do have qualities and boundaries unto ourselves, but we are also substantially shaped and constituted by the cloud of relationships around us. \u00a0You are not\u00a0you<\/em> alone.<\/p>\nWhen you find a spouse, you are finding one of the greatest tools that God will ever use to shape you, and one of the great vessels of God\u2019s grace into your life. \u00a0I\u2019m speaking here of what marriage is intended to be, and what it can be (at least in general) when two individuals are seeking and submitting to God\u2019s will. \u00a0And here\u2019s the rub: the male will be complemented and enriched, edified and humbled, challenged and improved by the female, just as the female will by the male. \u00a0Traditional Christians have long believed that this is a part of the natural order created and ordained by God; the male is meant for the female, and the female for the male, for companionship, for sanctification, for refuge, and for bringing new life into the world.<\/p>\n
Men and women enter into a lifelong commitment both for their own sakes (so that they can be themselves and give themselves in complete security) and for the sake of any children they might have. \u00a0Not all married couples have children, of course. \u00a0This does not make their marriages any less valuable. \u00a0But it also doesn\u2019t change the fact (from the Christian perspective) that marriage in general is intended, among other things, to provide children with a safe, stable environment, and one in which they can learn to understand, love, and be loved by both men and women. \u00a0It is, to my mind, one of the sublime mysteries of Christian doctrine that a relational (Triune), self-giving (sacrificial) Creator God invites his children through relationship and through their self-giving to participate in his constant task of creating and preserving, nurturing and maturing new life.<\/p>\n
Third, the church traditionally has taught that the natural bond and creative complementarity of male and female is rooted in the created order. <\/strong>Marriage is a social contract<\/em> (a covenant between two people), but it is not a social construct<\/em>. \u00a0Marriage is an enduring social arrangement (an institution) ordained by God, rooted in the different ways in which God has created us, and intended by God as a sacrament of his grace. \u00a0We are not free to redefine marriage any more than we are free to redefine the laws of physics. \u00a0We might call something else marriage, but that will not make it so.<\/p>\nWhen I look at human history, what impresses me is the remarkable continuity in what marriage has meant across time and across multiple cultures. \u00a0There are variations, to be sure, including some important ones (like polygamy or concubinage), but the most important variations almost invariably served the interests of those in power. \u00a0Some Christians have believed that polygamy was necessary at some times in biblical history, and may be acceptable in some circumstances (amongst jungle tribesmen, for instance) where mortality rates are high, or etc. \u00a0Others believe that figures like Solomon were simply wrong and sinful in taking multiple wives and concubines. \u00a0In any case, the model of marriage has been remarkably stable in the Judeo-Christian tradition for two-thousand years. \u00a0Even outside that tradition, almost every culture has had something like marriage; and the greatest variation is over the issue of polygamy, but many Christians simply see (and condemn) modern polygamy as a case of men behaving badly. \u00a0And for Christians, it doesn\u2019t particularly matter whether other cultures have gotten it right, or even whether their own history represents the ideal well, but whether the institution and ideal of marriage emerges from scripture and church teaching. \u00a0Falling short of the ideal is not, in itself, reason to scuttle it.<\/p>\n
There. \u00a0I\u2019ve said about as much as I can say in a single blog post about the nature of marriage. \u00a0More will be said about its nature in the next post too, when I consider whether the institution of marriage is good and worth defending in the current context. \u00a0For now: Christians traditionally have seen marriage \u2014 like a Stradivarius \u2014 as the uniting of ordinary elements in such a way that their union, precise because of their fundamental and natural differences, serves for the creation of life, beauty and goodness. \u00a0We are made and most of us are intended to find wholeness and fulfillment in binding the male and female together, and in their mutual self-giving to \u2018create\u2019 and protect and nurture new life.<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A friend and colleague recently challenged me with the question, \u201cWhat is the institution of marriage, anyway?\u201d \u00a0The essential points of her critique were (1) marriage is more of an evolution than an institution, insofar as the forms of marriage vary and always have varied historically and culturally, and (2) the \u201cinstitution\u201d of marriage most […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":30,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[27],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-601","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-marriage"],"yoast_head":"\n
What Really *Is* the Institution of Marriage? - Philosophical Fragments<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"A friend and colleague recently challenged me with the question, "What is the institution of marriage, anyway?" \u00a0The essential points of her critique were\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/philosophicalfragments\/2011\/07\/14\/what-really-is-the-institution-of-marriage\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"What Really *Is* the Institution of Marriage? - Philosophical Fragments\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"A friend and colleague recently challenged me with the question, "What is the institution of marriage, anyway?" \u00a0The essential points of her critique were\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/philosophicalfragments\/2011\/07\/14\/what-really-is-the-institution-of-marriage\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Philosophical Fragments\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-07-14T19:26:01+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"http:\/\/marriageafterinfidelity.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2009\/11\/rings.jpg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Timothy Dalrymple\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Timothy Dalrymple\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/philosophicalfragments\/2011\/07\/14\/what-really-is-the-institution-of-marriage\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/philosophicalfragments\/2011\/07\/14\/what-really-is-the-institution-of-marriage\/\",\"name\":\"What Really *Is* the Institution of Marriage? - Philosophical Fragments\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/philosophicalfragments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-14T19:26:01+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2011-07-14T19:26:01+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/philosophicalfragments\/#\/schema\/person\/de8c9a4caf0177191808914f83826310\"},\"description\":\"A friend and colleague recently challenged me with the question, \\\"What is the institution of marriage, anyway?\\\" \u00a0The essential points of her critique were\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/philosophicalfragments\/2011\/07\/14\/what-really-is-the-institution-of-marriage\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/philosophicalfragments\/2011\/07\/14\/what-really-is-the-institution-of-marriage\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/philosophicalfragments\/2011\/07\/14\/what-really-is-the-institution-of-marriage\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/philosophicalfragments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"What Really *Is* the Institution of Marriage?\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/philosophicalfragments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/philosophicalfragments\/\",\"name\":\"Philosophical Fragments\",\"description\":\"Daily Thoughts on Faith, Culture and Politics from Timothy Dalrymple\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/philosophicalfragments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/philosophicalfragments\/#\/schema\/person\/de8c9a4caf0177191808914f83826310\",\"name\":\"Timothy Dalrymple\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/philosophicalfragments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/53a368bbc8d116657d6af168549f2add?s=96&d=identicon&r=pg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/53a368bbc8d116657d6af168549f2add?s=96&d=identicon&r=pg\",\"caption\":\"Timothy Dalrymple\"},\"description\":\"Timothy Dalrymple was raised in non-denominational evangelical congregations in California. The son and grandson of ministers, as a young boy he spent far too many hours each night staring at the ceiling and pondering the afterlife. \u00a0 In all his work he seeks a better understanding of why people do, and do not, come to faith, and researches and teaches in religion and science, faith and reason, theology and philosophy, the origins of atheism, Christology, and the religious transformations of suffering\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/philosophicalfragments\/author\/tdalrymple\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"What Really *Is* the Institution of Marriage? - Philosophical Fragments","description":"A friend and colleague recently challenged me with the question, \"What is the institution of marriage, anyway?\" \u00a0The essential points of her critique were","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/philosophicalfragments\/2011\/07\/14\/what-really-is-the-institution-of-marriage\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"What Really *Is* the Institution of Marriage? - Philosophical Fragments","og_description":"A friend and colleague recently challenged me with the question, \"What is the institution of marriage, anyway?\" \u00a0The essential points of her critique were","og_url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/philosophicalfragments\/2011\/07\/14\/what-really-is-the-institution-of-marriage\/","og_site_name":"Philosophical Fragments","article_published_time":"2011-07-14T19:26:01+00:00","og_image":[{"url":"http:\/\/marriageafterinfidelity.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2009\/11\/rings.jpg"}],"author":"Timothy Dalrymple","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Timothy Dalrymple","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/philosophicalfragments\/2011\/07\/14\/what-really-is-the-institution-of-marriage\/","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/philosophicalfragments\/2011\/07\/14\/what-really-is-the-institution-of-marriage\/","name":"What Really *Is* the Institution of Marriage? - Philosophical Fragments","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/philosophicalfragments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-07-14T19:26:01+00:00","dateModified":"2011-07-14T19:26:01+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/philosophicalfragments\/#\/schema\/person\/de8c9a4caf0177191808914f83826310"},"description":"A friend and colleague recently challenged me with the question, \"What is the institution of marriage, anyway?\" \u00a0The essential points of her critique were","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/philosophicalfragments\/2011\/07\/14\/what-really-is-the-institution-of-marriage\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/philosophicalfragments\/2011\/07\/14\/what-really-is-the-institution-of-marriage\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/philosophicalfragments\/2011\/07\/14\/what-really-is-the-institution-of-marriage\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/philosophicalfragments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"What Really *Is* the Institution of Marriage?"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/philosophicalfragments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/philosophicalfragments\/","name":"Philosophical Fragments","description":"Daily Thoughts on Faith, Culture and Politics from Timothy Dalrymple","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/philosophicalfragments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/philosophicalfragments\/#\/schema\/person\/de8c9a4caf0177191808914f83826310","name":"Timothy Dalrymple","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/philosophicalfragments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/53a368bbc8d116657d6af168549f2add?s=96&d=identicon&r=pg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/53a368bbc8d116657d6af168549f2add?s=96&d=identicon&r=pg","caption":"Timothy Dalrymple"},"description":"Timothy Dalrymple was raised in non-denominational evangelical congregations in California. The son and grandson of ministers, as a young boy he spent far too many hours each night staring at the ceiling and pondering the afterlife. \u00a0 In all his work he seeks a better understanding of why people do, and do not, come to faith, and researches and teaches in religion and science, faith and reason, theology and philosophy, the origins of atheism, Christology, and the religious transformations of suffering","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/philosophicalfragments\/author\/tdalrymple\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/philosophicalfragments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/601","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/philosophicalfragments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/philosophicalfragments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/philosophicalfragments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/30"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/philosophicalfragments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=601"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/philosophicalfragments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/601\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/philosophicalfragments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=601"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/philosophicalfragments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=601"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/philosophicalfragments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=601"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/marriageafterinfidelity.net\/wp-content\/uploads\/2009\/11\/rings.jpg\")
<\/a>A friend and colleague recently challenged<\/a> me with the question, \u201cWhat is<\/em> the institution of marriage, anyway?\u201d \u00a0The essential points of her critique were (1) marriage is more of an evolution than an institution, insofar as the forms of marriage vary and always have varied historically and culturally, and (2) the \u201cinstitution\u201d of marriage most cultural conservatives defend has been the basis for the oppression of women, the unmarried (single mothers especially), children born outside of wedlock, and generally anyone who does not conform to the preferred vision of domestic bliss. \u00a0This post is about the nature of marriage, from a Christian perspective; the next post will be about the goodness and the import of marriage thus understood.<\/p>\n