Wedlock?

[This is actually somewhat of a comment on a piece by Einar Bjorshol, whose English blog can be found here]

There´s a saying in Swedish parlance that describes someone as living off air and love, when they´re down in the first flush of falling in love. The truth is, you may live off air and love for a while, but not for very long, you can´t. So if you´re looking for poetical gibberish on the marital state, look elsewhere, this will be a decidedly unromantic and pragmatic statement on some issues concerning married life. Particularly those under threat in our “experience”-culture where only sensations count.

The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, “Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?”
And he answered and said unto them, “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.”
They say unto him, “Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?”
He saith unto them, “Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”
Matt 19:3-9

Some may argue that this is a patriarchal institution, which is obviously an argument completely oblivious to the conditions of an agricultural economy. Jesus´ rule is a safeguard for women without property, so that they may not be throwed out like dirty handkerchiefs when the man has found something new to his fancy. Incidentally, since they don´t own land, thrown out to prostitution or starvation. As the disciples (who were a bit patriarchal in their mindset...) say in response to Jesus, If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry.

The times have changed a bit since then, and the laws and customs with them. Some suggest we should update the marriage vows as well, such as this one: “I, (Bride/Groom), take you (Groom/Bride), to be my (wife/husband), to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; from this day forward until death do us part.”

I´d say, for the believer the marriage is very simple (in theory, at least...), “to love and to cherish... until death do us part”. Divorce is something reserved for the very worst cases of abuse of the trust and responsibilities implicit in the wedding vows; Jesus mentions fornication, I´d go out on a limb and say that assault and rape also qualifies. This however can only be a matter between the married couple – and God (who we should remember never asked to be involved, but since the vows (sometimes) are before Him, he is also (then) a party). This “enclosement” is a practical issue; if let´s say a church commision of elders we´re to decide whether there´s ground for divorce, call in witnesses, private investigators, evidence, we´ve transformed the church into a collection of judges, which we on no account can afford to become (by God´s promise we´re beyond redemption as judges).

The line “to love and to cherish... until death do us part” is under serious attack these days, since the ability to affect one´s emotion by will is seen either as impossible or dysfunctional. Any other way as pointless and uncalled for. If they want to struggle in chains they are bound to do so (read Emile Zola´s Therese Raquin for a good account of what this bondage is like. Of course the sentimental impulse to this passion is to embrace it, but it is a demonic desire to lose oneself in another person.). As a christian I value my liberty somewhat higher. I will give my love to a woman some day as a free gift, or not at all, and not for the sake of aesthetical notions of emotional intensity being the highest form of human existense. Or as Nick Cave puts it: “Worse to be love´s lover, than the lover that love has scorned!” So what about the line about life-long love? It should most definitely stay!

Some have suggested that since the law-notion of marriage drifts farther from the christian notion of marriage, at some point we have to ask ourselves the use of getting the law-marriage at all. Probably we´ll see a development where the legal and the religious ceremonies are two separate things. Ultimately though, for me, being the pragmatic sort, I think marriage should entail the idea of economic union as well, since I don´t accept the separation of things sacred and profane. It´s not all about feelings, there is power-politics in love as well!

Holistic is an abused term (please, no crystals!), but fairly adequate to describe what I believe a married relation should be like. Nowadays, some married couples live apart, have separate economies etcetera, i e continue a “dating relationship” in married life. Schmucks! “For better or for worse” is another line we should value, and not continue in a lifelong race trying to impress one another. Don´t we have better things to do? Such as, say, loving and supporting each other? Because life sure isn´t a piece of cake, which diminishes by us sharing it.

If anyone accuses me of conservatism on this issue, so be it. I believe we´re made in this fashion. I believe society´s hedonistic “Every Man Is An Island” gospel doesn´t change anything at the heart of the matter. I also have no interest in forcing anyone else to comply with my views, since that would be to follow me and not God, hence swapping one idol (hedonistic freedom) for another (decency through law).