As Lewis indicates, doctrines on Christian marriage are not popular. If he spoke those words in the 1950′s, how more so are they true today! In our Western culture, we have not abandoned the idea of marriage, but we have reframed it in a different light and in many ways minimized its importance. Lewis highlights some of these distinctions in this chapter. On a side note, it is interesting to read this early work, prior to his marriage to Joy.

First, what is Christian marriage? I am asking a very specific question and not a general question like “What is marriage?”. As we shall see shortly, they [marriage in general versus a Christian marriage] differ in many ways. From the Christian perspective, it is more than a mere contract. While Lewis does use the specific language of the Bible; I’m sure he would say that he is writing to the general audience. The term “promise” or other similar words do not compare to the biblical word of “covenant”, except the term covenant does not carry much weight in our context. However, as we shall see, covenant is a better word for it describes the use of justice in the marriage union.

The way Lewis frames his approach deals with promise keeping in relation to impulses, particularly sexual ones. In Lewis’ culture as well as our own, we tend to “isolate” certain desires and make them a driving force. I would say that we not only isolate, we heighten the intensity of the desire to exploit our sexuality. As a result, sexual pleasure becomes a strong driving force.

The duty of keeping that promise has no special connection with sexual morality: it is in the same position as any other promise. If, as modern people are always telling us, the sexual impulse is just like all our other impulses, then it ought to be treated like all our other impulses; and as their indulgence is controlled by our promises, so should its be” (97).

Another aspect of marriage, where both Christians and non-Christians agree, is the feeling of being “in love”. Both Christians and non-Christians will say something like, “We are just not in love anymore.” What they mean is that the strong, intense feeling is no longer present in the way it once was, and therefore, we have lost something we will never gain again.

Lewis draws attention to this faulty thinking about marriage. There is nothing wrong with being “in love”, but it is important to know that it is not a lasting feeling that weathers the storms of marriage.

The idea that ‘being in love’ is the only reason for remaining married really leaves no room for marriage as a contract or promise at all. If love is the whole thing, then the promise can add nothing; and if is adds nothing, then it should not be made… The Christian law is not forcing upon the passion of love something which is foreign to that passion’s own nature: it is demanding that lovers should take seriously something which their passion of itself impels them to do… A promise [covenant] must be about things that I can do, about actions: no one can promise to go on feeling in a certain way” (98).

There is much more we could talk about, including the controversial topic of headship, particularly in light of a post-feminist culture. What I want to address in these final comments is the notion of judicial boundaries. Lewis says, “There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members” (102). I strongly agree with Lewis on this point, and that we should draw a sharp distinction between those in the church and those outside the church.

In my denomination, congregants joining the church pledge to submit themselves to the government and discipline of the church, but it seems that in many churches, including my own denomination and others with similar confessional standards, marriage and divorce are excluded. Why?

For one, the church is driven to appease people. Let’s just be honest. People pay the bills, and if people get mad or offended by the church trying to uphold biblical truth, they take their tithing elsewhere, leaving the church in financial jeopardy. Most churches do not uphold divorce as an acceptable first approach, but they also only fight it in so far as it doesn’t destroy the relationship between the church and the congregant(s), where one of the two spouses normally leaves anyway.

Secondly, there is no way to track, between churches, those who divorced outside biblical standards and those who haven’t. There is no central database for inquiring churches. If someone divorces in one church, and the church deems it as against biblical standards, the individual typically will move to another church. That church has no idea what happened at the previous church and usually never takes the time to discover. They go solely on the person’s testimony.

Christian marriage is one of those areas of the church where it struggles the most. In our time, more than any other, singles and divorcees makes up one of the largest portion of attendees, almost surpassing married couples. There has been much written on the topic, a flood of material in fact, and yet it is a growing problem in the church.

Lewis has tackled quite a problem in the church today, and what makes this reading so interesting is that Lewis upheld the very principles in his marriage, which were only “hypothetical” when he wrote them. In his book A Sever Mercy, Sheldon Vanauken talks about marriage, their conversion, and the pain of losing his wife, all while building a relationship with Lewis and Lewis sharing some of his own struggles as he watched Joy suffer too. It is a great book, and I highly recommend reading it.

On Thursday, we will look at the chapters entitled Forgiveness and The Great Sin. There is a marriage section in Reformed Mind Books with books I recommend reading. Have a great day!