How Protestantism Redefined Marriage

[rug]

Posted: 05/15/2012 12:31 pm
Bethany Blankley

It's important to trace the history of marriage within the Western Christian tradition to understand the ironic conundrum with which Americans find themselves today.

Early Christians in the first through third century understood marriage to be a union between one man and one woman created by God as a consummated partnership described in Genesis 2. Early Christian leaders, such as the Apostle Paul, explained that marriage was more than just a union between two people. It was an act of worship that pointed to Christ's sacrificial relationship with the church (Ephesians 5). Therefore, marriage was not about a contract or a financial engagement as had been the custom for centuries prior, but a sacred union that should reflect God's love. Christ turned the accepted cultural norms about marriage on its head.

Later, in the fourth century, Constantine, the first Roman emperor to convert to Christianity, instituted Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire. This act formalized Christian customs and grew the responsibility of the Roman church, which over time became formally responsible for performing weddings.

It wasn't until the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century that the recording of marriages and establishing of rules for marriage became a function of the state. Martin Luther, the Catholic priest who initiated the Reformation in Germany said that marriage was a "worldly thing ... that belongs to the realm of government." A similar opinion was expressed by John Calvin, his Swiss counterpart. Calvin and his colleagues reformulated Christian marriage by enacting the Marriage Ordinance of Geneva, which imposed "The dual requirements of state registration and church consecration to constitute marriage" as valid.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bethany-blankley/how-protestantism-redefined-marriage_b_1510654.html

[intaglio]

1. There are some very dubious bits in this article,

even just in the fragment that you have quoted.

For example:

Later, in the fourth century, Constantine, the first Roman emperor to convert to Christianity, instituted Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire

This single sentence contains 2 errors; firstly, Constantine did not convert until on his deathbed - if he converted at all, this conversion tale was that of a prelate who attended that death; Secondly, during his life Constantine made Christianity a faith of the Empire but other faiths were tolerated notably that of Sol Invictis.

Other problems include the fact that marriage was very often solemnized within a sacred context before Christianity, as it involved the swearing of oaths and in the Roman state the record of oaths sworn before the gods was kept by the temple concerned - theoretically a neutral 3rd party - as were the last wills of the major families.

Again, it is disingenuous to imply that the early Christian leaders were in accord about the position of marriage or even about its place within the sacraments. Paul was in a minority amongst early Christians regarding Gentile involvement in the Church. Both Paul and the other early leaders believed (on the evidence of the few writings that remain) in an imminent apocalypse and that marriage in this interregnum would be futile.

Lastly, marriage remained a largely financial arrangement, the province of the wealthier members of society, love entered into the equation only as something that might develop between a married couple after the ceremony. Love before marriage was looked on as leading to sin.

With so many errors in these few paragraphs I rather doubt any conclusions Ms Blankley draws.

[rexcat]

2. Religious groups can redefine marriage all they want but...

in the US it will always be a requirement in the US one is required to get a license from the state in which the ceremony is taking place therefore marriage is first and foremost a secular event. If a "religious" group wants to have its own definition go right ahead but the state is the one who has the final say so. If religious groups want to be bigots about the process that is their prerogative but keep it out of the public realm.

edited for clarity