I’m posting this in a most self-indulgent way to get your reaction.
So Protestants in their way degraded marriage by depriving it of sacramental status as a manifestation of the divine personal logos in this world. Marriage became predominately natural but still somewhat Christian. It wasn’t rechained to the paganism of aristocratic patriarchy. For most Protestants, the marriage tie remained relational (or loving) and deeply—if less deeply–binding, and in fact it became expected of everyone—even or especially members of the clergy—as, for one thing, a remedy for the sin of lust.
To be personal continued to mean, for most Protestants, to be relational. The status of the Trinity was no longer clearly connected to the requirements of personal logos. But the Trinity remained a mystery that reflected something fundamental about who God is and those made in his image are. Tocqueville emphasizes that the Puritans were family men and women, and he contrasts them in their civilized religious and communal idealism from the solitary and rather godless adventurers who founded Virginia.
The Protestants—particularly the Lutherans—might be understood, from another view, to have elevated marriage by freeing it from comparison with the alleged superiority of the celibate or virginal or monastic life. By becoming less than a sacrament—or less an anticipation of the world to come, it became what it is in this world. So the jurisdiction over marriage shifted from the church to the state without simply subordinating marriage again to the requirements of the state.
Marriage became a contract between free persons authorized and protected by civil law. And so it became a contract that could be—for good, natural reasons–made and unmade. Divorce became possible for adultery and desertion. And the right to remarriage emerged—there being, after all, no natural obstacle to it. That right might be, for both natural or “sociobiological” and sociological reasons, more effectually exercised by men. But it’s surely now understood as a blessing for a woman with children.
So in some ways, at least, the “desacralization” of marriage might be understood as progress for free persons. Christian, relational freedom persists, but arguably with a more consistent articulation of the insight that marriage is not part of the more perfect relational world to come. Because everyone is called to live according to the moral and relational virtue required of sinful, biological beings in this world, celibacy—or living too much in anticipation of the world to come—becomes suspect as unnatural, too aberrant or perversely selfish, and impossible.
In Tocqueville’s largely true telling, the insistently religious dimension of being puritanical faded in our country. And what eventually became the dominant form of Christian heresy in America we typically trace to John Locke.
Locke’s intention is sometimes said to be anti-Christian, but he actually wanted to reform Christianity to tell the whole truth about the free person the early Christians discovered. The early Christians weren’t consistent enough in understanding the personal insight. From Locke’s view, the Lutheran/Calvinist view of who we are exaggerated our bondage to natural—or sinful, biological—necessity in this world. So marriage—and the person–can and should be freed much more than the more “mainstream” (or differently heretical) Protestants believed from relational or natural baggage here and now.
From Locke’s view, we might say, the mainstream or Trinitarian Protestants detached—in a quite un-Christian way—marriage from the full truth about our freedom. Locke restored that connection, but in a more heretical way: He disagreed with the orthodox view that to be personal is to be relational. To be relational is to be natural, and to be personal is to be free—or not a natural being.
January 1st, 2013 | 12:38 pm
I’m disappointed in the sweeping dismissal of Protestants outright by the elevation of some that fit to make the argument. I am a Protestant, raised by Protestants, of a lineage of Protestants, and yet I recognise marriage as a sacrament, usually in an Anglican vein. My Southern Baptist parents, though, call marriage sacramental–here we have our differences, but the movement is toward the same approach. Moreover and imperatively, there are a number of Protestants I have met who would not use the word “sacrament” but would describe marriage with sacramental language, though they don’t know it. This kind of generality is the same kind of criticism without nuance that I have tried to keep Protestant friends from making toward Catholics. Sad to see it here in reverse.
January 1st, 2013 | 1:00 pm
[...] I’m posting this in a most self-indulgent way to get your reaction. So Protestants in their way degraded marriage by depriving it of sacramental status as a manifestation of the divine Source: Postmodern Conservative [...]
January 1st, 2013 | 1:03 pm
[...] The (Protestant) Christian View of Marriage – Peter Lawler, PoMoCon / First Things [...]
January 1st, 2013 | 1:28 pm
Very strictly speaking, from the perspective of Catholics, “marriage between two baptized persons is a sacrament” (http://old.usccb.org/laity/marriage/marriagefaqs.shtml) and “this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament” (http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c3a7.htm). Even if Protestants are sometimes confused, is it true that the Church, at least, views their marriages as sacramental if they are baptized in the proper Christian form?
January 1st, 2013 | 1:36 pm
Preston and Will–Fine observations. It is, in fact, impossible to speak of Protestants in general. It might be possible, as both comments suggests, to rank heretics on some scale as more or less Catholic.
January 1st, 2013 | 2:31 pm
[...] More on the (Protestant) Christian View of MarriageFirst Things (blog)So Protestants in their way degraded marriage by depriving it of sacramental status as a manifestation of the divine personal logos in this world. Marriage became predominately natural but still somewhat Christian. It wasn't rechained to the paganism … [...]
January 1st, 2013 | 3:35 pm
[...] Christian News Source- news.google.com [...]
January 1st, 2013 | 4:11 pm
It is an interesting point: that perhaps the abandonment of celibacy contributed to the eventual desacralization of marriage.
I wonder if this same desacralization of marriage (of marriage being less sacramental)led to an earlier decline in fertility among Protestants, who among their founders were very solicitous about fruitfulness in marriage. Meanwhile, this same phenomenon of declining fertility is rapidly taking hold among Catholics.
January 2nd, 2013 | 6:05 am
The great and unlooked for discoveries that have taken place of late years in postmodern conservative philosophy, the increasing diffusion of general knowledge from the extension of the art of blogging, the ardent and unshackled spirit of inquiry that prevails throughout the lettered and even unlettered world, the new and extraordinary lights that have been thrown on political subjects which dazzle and astonish the
understanding, and particularly that tremendous phenomenon in the political horizon, the Arab Spring, which, like a blazing comet, seems destined either to inspire with fresh life and vigour, or to scorch up and destroy the shrinking inhabitants of the earth, have all concurred to lead many able men into the opinion that we were touching on a period big with the most important changes, changes that would in
some measure be decisive of the future fate of mankind.
Thus actually begins, or close enough to get me in trouble for plagerism in the right venue, an essay on Population by a Rev. in the Anglican Church who might perchance slightly dispute Fr. Gardner’s characterization, circa (1798).
Of course he tended to believe that God made man, man. Silly Malthus! “as we have not hitherto seen any alteration in them, we have no right to conclude that they will ever cease to be what they now are, without an immediate act of power in that Being who first arranged the system of the universe, and for the advantage of his creatures, still executes, according to fixed laws, all its various operations.”
Thus he eroneously claimed that: “I think it will be allowed, that no state has hitherto existed (at least that we have any
account of) where the manners were so pure and simple, and the means of subsistence so abundant, that no check whatever has existed to early marriages, among the lower classes, from a fear of not providing well for their families, or among the higher classes, from a fear of lowering their condition in life.”
But Malthus while starting with the example of America forgot our foundational Article I Section 8, clause 8 American Exceptionalism! In terms of copyright, well everyone likes to tell a brighter story about themselves and what they believe, this in turn leads to an improvement in Servicemark or self-pride, thus neglecting not only american exceptionalism, but also Anglican and Catholic Exceptionalism. I have no nature created by God, I am a Catholic! Oh yeah, my Baptist church also recognizes the Sacrament, and we pray directly to God, so I am going to prove it to you with my WWJD bracelet. In addition Malthus’s Island probably really missed the boat on Monsanto (patent).
Malthus (Copyright Pwned, Trademark Pwned, Patent Pwned) but essentially not altogether irrelevant.
Since it is close to what I might believe, just how heretical is this?
January 2nd, 2013 | 6:22 am
Protestant marriage also weakened when its meaning was separated from procreation. Catholic wedding ceremonies must always mention children; Protestant weddings often do not mention children and the mentioning is optional. So marriage becomes a matter of romantic love and friendship –which can wax and wane –leading to what marriage is today.
January 2nd, 2013 | 3:55 pm
While Mormons allow for divorce, the Mormon ideal is “celestial [heavenly] marriage”, marriage that will continue through eternity, and not end with the death of one of the spouses. It is an ordinance that can only be conducted by a specially ordained priest within a specially dedicated temple. Mormons marry the person they plan to be resurrected with.
And they anticipate that their children will continue to be their sons and daughters throughout eternity as well. Combined with the belief that children lived with God before birth, the value of each child is infinitely multiplied in this view, and so Mormons have more children than their neighbors, even though they are not barred from using contraceptives. Based on my own observations, even today the median Mormon family has about five children. The anticipated state of mankind in the resurrection is that each person will be eternally “sealed” to her parents and ancestors, and to her children and descendants, in a great web of everlasting loving relationships. That valuation of the holiness and permanency of our family relationships leads us to be more willing to invest in them in the here and now.
January 3rd, 2013 | 1:41 am
A good, theologically serious, protestant account of marriage and sex can be found in three of Tim Keller’s sermons (he’s PCA, but what he had to say sounded right to me as a Southern Baptist as well). He’s also written a book on marriage called, “The Meaning of Marriage.” Not that any of my Catholic friends need one, but these are a good primer on what most protestants think on marriage.
Conveniently, you can download some of his sermons from itunes (https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/timothy-keller-podcast/id352660924). The sermon titles are: “Marriage as Commitment and Priority;” “Sexuality and Christian Hope;” and “Love and Lust.”
I suspect you won’t hear much that’s new, but you may be surprised by just how “sacramental” a view of marriage it is, and also by the non-abandonment of celibacy.
January 3rd, 2013 | 10:25 am
Mr. Lawler: I am puzzled with your comments. As a Lutheran, I have to wonder if you have been present for sermons on marriage in the Lutheran Church or have read Luther’s comments concerning marriage–or for that matter the nearly 500 years of Lutheran writings on marriage. I believe you might find that the Lutheran view of marriage is quite a bit more elevated than you have given it credit.
Perhaps confusion stems from a misunderstanding of the Lutheran distinction between what is a sacrament and what is “sacramental”. All sacraments are sacramental–but not all that is sacramental is a sacrament. In Lutheran theology, to be a sacrament three things must be present: 1.) That there is a Biblical command. 2.) There is a Biblical promise of grace. And 3.) An earthly element.
Jesus issued no command to marry nor did He give a promise of grace through marriage. The crux of the matter is that marriage does not deliver forgiveness of sins–which in the Lutheran view is the very essence of a sacrament.
But marriage can be sacramental. Blessings can and will flow. That God is the third partner in the marriage between a man and a woman and marriage is a prefigurement of the world to come have long been themes in Lutheran preaching. At least in every Lutheran wedding I have been to (and reflected in the marriage liturgy to be found in Lutheran hymnals), prayers for the blessing of children to the couple are ever present.
It seems to be a common trope among Catholics commentators that with Luther everything started to fall apart in Western Civilization. The truth is Luther never wanted to leave the Catholic Church–he sought its restoration. It was the foolishness of the Pope to have kicked Luther and his followers out of the Church. With a more deft and patient hand on the part of the Church, much if not most of the reformers would have remained in the fold.
Be that as it may, I believe that on further investigation you will find Lutheran teaching is far closer to Catholic instruction than perhaps you may believe.
January 3rd, 2013 | 11:04 am
I am in one of those unorganized non-denominational Protestant churches. Heretical, probably, although everyone can agree on the basic creeds and our “doxy” is pretty “ortho”, but also very simple, even simplistic. One of the few organizing principles is of the idea of marriage as a covenant between God, man and woman. Procreation is assumed as part of marriage and most of the church consists of large families now into a second generation.
Locke — I thought he assumed a social compact which might limit government, but not social ties.
January 25th, 2013 | 10:05 pm
[...] 3. Articulista protestante critica o modo desacralizado de tratar o matrimônio, especialmente entre…. Segundo o autor, Peter Lawler, os protestantes americanos compraram a crítica de John Locke ao matrimônio natural, que deriva da crítica à lei natural. O resultado é a redução do matrimônio ao estatuto civil. Dessacralizar a instituição matrimonial é o início da crise religiosa dos protestantes e (por que não?) dos cristãos em geral. [...]
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact