I am going to do one more post on Mere Christianity before I put it to the side for a week or two. The next chapter deals with Christian Marriage. In light of the recent “gay marriage” debate, I think there might be one or two things that can be applied to that, but Lewis was not addressing that issue. He simply wants to clearly explain the Christian idea of marriage. This is somewhat of a touchy subject with me, being that I am recently divorced. In any case, I am going to break this post up into the six main points Lewis makes, along with my brief comments for each one.
Point One: “One Flesh”
The first point Lewis makes is that the Christian idea of marriage is that it is more than just a contract. In fact, the husband and wife are to be regarded as a single organism, and that together as male and female, they make up a complete human being—this is what “one flesh” means. Therefore, if we understand that, we see how monstrous the concept of sex outside of marriage is: for sex is meant not simply as a means of procreation, but as a means of fostering a deeper union between male and female pairs. To divorce the pleasures of sex from the union of marriage is like trying to “get the pleasures of taste without swallowing and digesting;” it would be like simply “chewing things and spitting them out again.” In that sense, sex outside of marriage is a kind of sexual/spiritual bulimia.
Overall I would certainly agree. At the same time, though, that getting that marriage certificate doesn’t automatically make the couple “one flesh.” There has to be a spiritual commitment that coincides with sex to make the two “one flesh.” To that point, sex without commitment certainly is something akin to sexual/spiritual bulimia, and that can apply to virtually everyone.
Point Two: Divorce
The second point Lewis makes is that, given that concept of marriage as a total union, divorce is much more than just the dissolving of a legal contract—it is more akin to getting your legs cut off. It is the cutting up of a spiritual organism.
Anyone who has gone through a painful divorce will problem concur that that is what is feels like. Even in the worst or most loveless of marriages, there is pain involved in divorce. There are many people who probably should have never gotten married in the first place; and unfortunately, people who get divorced who then rush into another relationship or marriage will end up getting divorced again. Why? Because there was something broken inside of them that either led to their first divorce or was a consequence of that first divorce. If that happens to you, no matter how lonely you may feel, you need to spend time processing what you’ve gone through and making sense of it before you even think of getting involved with someone else. If you don’t, that “broken thing” inside you is going to doom your next relationship as well.
Point Three: Living Together
The third point Lewis makes is that is regards to the prevalence of divorce in our society. It’s a very simply point: if you don’t really mean, “Till death do us part,” if you’re not intending for your marriage to last a lifetime, you would be much better off just living together, instead of going through the charade and empty promises of life-long fidelity. He states, “It is true that by living together without marriage they will be guilty (in Christian eyes) of fornication. But one fault is not mended by adding another: unchastity is not improved by adding perjury.” I have to say, he makes a good point.
Yes, it is hard to believe that Lewis is actually saying in some circumstances it is better to not get married, and just live together. As strange as that may sound to some, he makes an excellent point. If you have no real intention of life-long commitment, be honest about it. Besides, you’re going to lose a lot more than you thought in the divorce!
Point Four: Being in Love vs. Love
The fourth point Lewis makes involves making the distinction between “being in love” and “loving someone.” Simply put, those “romantic feelings” people have for others can be the spark that impels them to commit their lives to that other person. But those “romantic feelings” are not going to last forever, and that’s okay. As Lewis states: “Being in love is a good thing, but it is not the best thing. There are many things below it, but there are also things above it. You cannot make it the basis of a whole life. It is a noble feeling, but it is still a feeling. No feeling can be relied on to last in its full intensity, or even to last at all.”
Again, a great point, and one that our society doesn’t get. How many people get divorced as soon as the “thrill is gone”? How many people give up as soon as there is no constant romance? We have confused “romance” and the “white wedding” for the actual commitment and the actual marriage. Such a concept is bound to let us down.
Point Five: The Deeper Unity
This leads to his fifth point: a married couple has to allow those initial, intense romantic feelings to gradually fade away and, by commitment and habitual determination, develop a deeper, more quiet unity that knits their souls together. As Lewis says, “Ceasing to ‘be in love’ need not mean ceasing to love.” Therefore, if you allow that initial thrill to die away, you “will find you are living in a world of new thrills all the time.”
I think we all know this to be true: what is more satisfying to see? A giggling, over-affectionate newlywed couple, or that quiet, secure, deep unity you see in a couple that has been together for 50 years and still just really, really, really love being together? I think we know the answer—that is what we should shoot for.
Point Six: State vs. Church Marriage
Lewis’ final point is this: there should be a clear distinction between marriages licensed by the State and marriages licensed by the Church. Christian marriage has certain expectations, and it wouldn’t be right to force a non-Christian to live by the rules and expectations of Christian marriage.
I think that is a very good idea, especially in light of the modern “gay marriage” debate. As a matter of legal rights, if a gay couple wants to secure those legal privileges that a State bestows, I don’t think Christians should kick up a fuss or object—it is purely a legal matter. It is not a “Christian marriage” to begin with. In my opinion, what the State grants really is a “civil union,” even when it involves a heterosexual couple. In any case, if we made the clear distinction between what the State does and what the Church does, I think this controversy would be over. I know there is a lot more to the debate, but we need to acknowledge that we are not living in a Christian society–it is what it is.
