The Western Epidemic.
Western civilization owes much of its culture, values, and advancements to the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century. However what affect, if any, did this movement have upon the thought of sexuality and gender roles? How did Luther’s priesthood of the believer affect the home life and what effect did Calvin’s semi-theocratic Geneva have upon a culture breaking away from years of sexual renunciation? While not a central or even a tertiary tenet of the Reformation, the sexual ethics and attitude in the west owe much of their freedoms to the Reformers, their legacy is as inescapable in the history of sex as it is in the history of theology.
We believe the bible not the traditions of men. This is and other similar sayings are often the cry of western evangelicals who are ignorant of their history, from the King James Version Onlyists to Baptist perpetuity movement to the anti-intellectualism prevalent in many denominations. Courtship, engagement and marriage are no exception to the rule. Our tradition shapes our thought even in this aspect of theology. However because of our “tradition-less” tradition we have lost a sense of where we come from and even why it might be that we ought to return at least portions of our history unto our thought and theology about marriage.
Western civilization owes much of its culture, values, and advancements to the Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century. However what affect, if any, did this movement have upon the thought of sexuality and gender roles? How did Luther’s priesthood of the believer affect the home life and what effect did Calvin’s semi-theocratic Geneva have upon a culture breaking away from years of sexual renunciation? While not a central or even a tertiary tenet of the Reformation, the sexual ethics and attitude in the west owe much of their freedoms to the Reformers, their legacy is as inescapable in the history of sex as it is in the history of theology.
We believe the bible not the traditions of men. This is and other similar sayings are often the cry of western evangelicals who are ignorant of their history, from the King James Version Onlyists to Baptist perpetuity movement to the anti-intellectualism prevalent in many denominations. Courtship, engagement and marriage are no exception to the rule. Our tradition shapes our thought even in this aspect of theology. However because of our “tradition-less” tradition we have lost a sense of where we come from and even why it might be that we ought to return at least portions of our history unto our thought and theology about marriage.
Canon Law: From Whence We Came.
The canon law of the Catholic Tradition had a great affect on the reformers in this specific area of theology. Foremost the Catholic Church distinguished between an engagement contract and a marriage contract, the former being much easier to annul than the latter. The engagement contract often had many clauses and could be added to often and for many reasons, such as job security, parental conceit, and time limits. Furthermore there were fourteen main reasons that the engagement might be annulled, including youth of the members, polygamy, incest (including sisters of your brothers wife and spiritual sponsorship), disease or deformity, physical desertion (consisting of two years or more), failure to meet the terms of the contract, expiration of the contract, cruelty, fornication, special affinity (a more serious form of fornication), entry into the clergy, entry into a religious order, or mutual consent.
Clearly it seems rather simple to annul, engage, and it was also rather simple to consummate a marriage. A couple did not need the blessing of a priest or patristic or even a public ceremony if an engagement contract had been accepted. A marriage was considered consummated if the engaged couple acted out their marital relations. Though for two who were not engaged this would have been considered premarital sex, and would fall under the same punishment as fornication. Of course, a woman could escape the marriage if she could show that her fiancé raped her.
Once a marriage had been consummated it was far more difficult to annul. Many of them were simply retroactive versions of the engagement impediments. The first was the ability of either of the parties to choose to enter into the marriage. If one of the parties was shown to have entered the marriage under compulsion of sort then the marriage could be annulled. The second defined if either the members could actually have given their consent. If one of the members was not a baptized member of the Catholic Church they could not enter into the sacrament of marriage. The third impediment dealt with the sanctity of marriage, this included the use of contraception or promiscuity among either partner. The final impediment forbade bigamy and polygamy in all forms. This included any prior marriages, which were not annulled by the previous spouse’s death.
Martin Luther: The Beginning of Reform.
Martin Luther owes much of his theology of marriage to the Canon Law and rightly so as he was an Augustinian Monk who sought, not to break from the church, but reform it to scripture. He brought many of the same impediments to marriage, though he did not list as many for the contracts of engagement. He insisted on a less separation of incest moving out of the context from four degrees of blood separation to only forbidding those listed in Leviticus 18:6-13. He also denounced the further use of incest which forbade marriage to a brother’s wife’s sister or the like, seeing this as neither commanded nor forbidden by scripture. Further Luther could not understand why anyone who was baptized by another could not be married to him or her nor his or her son or daughter? If all were baptized into the death of Christ then were they not all spiritual sisters or brothers by the common baptism? Thus he rejected this popish stipulation upon marriage:
So away with this foolishness; take as your spouse whomsoever you please, whether it be godparent, godchild, or the daughter or sister of a sponsor, or whoever it may be, and disregard these artificial, money-seeking impediments. If you are not prevented from marrying a girl by the fact that she is a Christian, then do not let yourself be prevented by the fact that you baptised her, taught her, or acted as her sponsor.Luther further saw no merit in the premise that one might not be able to marry their adopted children or non-believers, criminals, those who had at one time taken a vow, such as nuns or monks, servants, priests, the formally engaged, et cetera. Perhaps the most interesting objection is to those who are engaged to one and marry another, because he takes a relative view of this marriage. In his opinion the man should stay with the first girl if at all possible, however, he cannot forbid the man from accepting the latter as his true wife and rejecting the former engagement.
Luther also simplified divorce, stating that adultery was the main grounds for divorce in staunch opposition to the Canon Law of the Catholic Church. He also taught that the state ought to make adultery a capital offense as it was during the theocracy administered by Moses. His other allotment for divorce was the failure to fulfill the marital duties. This could consist of many things, including marital relations, provision, and child rearing.
Luther thought that marriage ought to be for the glory of God and the sanctification of the believer however not sacramental as the Catholic Church held. Luther rejected the notion that marriage was simply for procreation and a form of lust control. While he did see childbearing as a main tenet of marriage he also submits that “he who recognizes the estate of marriage will find therein delight, love, and joy without end.” Thus, to Luther marriage is a holy institution and ordinance. Where the Roman Church saw marriage as what was often bestowed upon those who could not endure celibacy, Luther saw it as a place in which to display the glory of God.
...To Be Continued...
0 comments:
Post a Comment