Mere Christianity -- Book 3, Chap. 6

Christian Marriage

In chap. 5, Lewis dealt with sexual morality from a negative point of view, but now he focuses on the "right working" sexual impulse within Christian marriage.

However, Lewis points out that he is a bit reluctant to deal with the topic of marriage for two reasons:  first, because the Christian point of view is extremely unpopular and second, because Lewis had not yet been married at this point of writing/speaking.  But nevertheless, his treatment of Christian morality would be deficient without such a treatment.

Christian Sexuality Only Within Marriage

In the last chap., Lewis summarized the Christian position on sexuality simply:  "either marriage, with complete faithfulness to your partner, or else total abstinence."

The Christian idea of marriage is grounded on Christ's understanding of the man and his wife becoming a single organism or one flesh.  This is not mere sentimentality but actual fact.  The "human machine" was designed so that NATRUALLY the two halves, male and female, were to be combined into one complete person -- not simply on the sexual level but on all levels of personality.

This is the essential problem of sexual intercourse outside of the marriage union in that it attempts to join the two halves together in only one kind of union (sexual) instead of the totality of the union that must go along with it.  The problem is that such a limited union operates against nature and violates the essential unity intended. 

This is why the Christian view of human sexuality is so important.  It isn't that Christians deny the pleasure of sex, but rather that they argue that:

You must not isolate that pleasure and try to get it by itself, any more than you ought to try to get the pleasures of taste without swallowing and digesting, by chewing things and spitting the out again.

The point is that to unite a man and woman in the sexual union apart from the total union ends up frustrating and ultimately destroying the "human machine" because it is not operating as nature intends.

Marriage is For Life

Further, this is why the Christian view of marriage is that the union should remain for life.  While there is some disagreement among Christians regarding divorce, there is much that they have in agreement, namely that divorce is something like "cutting up a living body, as a kind of surgical operation."  Some regard the operation as so intrusive and violent that it is forbidden in all cases, others would limit it as a final remedy only in extreme cases.  But all agree:

That it is more like having both your legs cut off than it is like dissolving a business partnership or even deserting a regiment.  What they all disagree with is the modern view that it is a simple readjustment of partners, to be made whenever people feel they are no longer in love with one another, or when either of them falls in love with someone else.

Simply put, divorce is so detrimental to humanity that it should be seen as only the last possible answer and taken with complete seriousness and awareness as to the damage that will certainly result.

One way of thinking about the permanency of the marriage bond is to consider it in light of the virtue of justice.  Remember that justice essentially means the "keeping of promises."  Every couple that has been married in a church has made a public, solemn promise to remain with their partner until death.  Now this promise is like any other promise or vow that is made or else the promise should have never been made in the first place.  To break such a promise to society leads to dishonesty and mistrust of the person's word.

But someone might respond that when they made the promise they did so only as a mere formality and not because they truly intended to keep their word.  But whom were they lying to:  God?  Themselves?  Or worse, the bride, bridegroom, their family? 

Lewis argues that he thinks they were lying primarily to the public.  They wanted the respectability attached to marriage without ever intending to pay the high price of keeping the commitment.  They were imposters, they cheated society.

It would have been better for them not to marry at all than to treat such a vow with such nonchalance.  Sure simply "living together" would have made them guilty of fornication (from a Christian point of view) but this one fault is only intensified by adding perjury to unchastity.

But What About "Being in Love"?

But some may retort, "But how can someone remain married to another without 'being in love' with them?"

But what does that have to do with making a promise?  If the promise does not add anything to love, then why make it? 

Why is it that those in love see the need to bind themselves together with promises?  This is according to nature.  Because we are so madly in love with another we seek to immortalize that love and commitment through binding oaths.  The passion of love impels lovers to be bound together exclusively.  Therefore, lovers have a duty to respect and maintain that promise that their passion for one another had impressed upon them.

Further, the promise, once made, takes precedence over everything else between the two partners.  If one of them, or both, suddenly fall "out of love" with one another, they should be true to their promise to remain joined as long as you both live.  Why?  Because:

A promise must be about things that I can do, about actions:  no one can promise to go on feeling in a certain way.  He might as well promise never to have a headache or always to feel hungry.

But why would you want someone to remain married to someone they do not love?

There are several reasons:

Social reasons; to provide a home for their children, to protect the woman (who has probably sacrificed or damaged her own career by getting married) from being dropped whenever the man is tired of her.

But there is yet another reason:  though we normally think of our options as simply either "good or bad," we should rather think of them as being "good, better, and best or bad, worse, and worst."  In other words, we shouldn't simply think of "being in love" is "good" while no longer being in love is "bad."  Rather, while "being in love" is a "good" thing, it is certainly not the "best" thing.

Why?  Because it is merely a feeling and, as Lewis has argued earlier, we should never set one of our feelings up as the ultimate determiner for our actions.  [Remember what happens when we don't respect and honor the hierarchy of the cardinal virtues.]   Why?  Because by their very nature "feelings" do not and cannot remain intense or even last forever.  They are not designed to.  Knowledge, principles, habits can last forever, but feelings come and go.

Who could live in a state of excitement or exuberance for even 5 years, much less an entire lifetime?  What would you ever get done or how would you ever be productive in society if you simply could not take one second away from looking into the eyes of your lover?

But "ceasing to be in love" does not mean "ceasing to love."  "Being in love" is merely a feeling.  "Loving" is an action you can perform, if you want to. 

[Love] is a deep unity, maintained by the will and deliberately strengthened by habit; reinforced by (in Christian marriages) the grace which both partners ask, and receive, from God.  They can have this love for each other even at those moments when they do not like each other; as you love yourself even when you do not like yourself.  They can retain this love even when each would easily, if they allowed themselves, be 'in love' with someone else.  

"Being in love" is what drove the couple to make this promise, but it is "love" that keeps the promise made.  "It is on this love that the engine of marriage is run:  being in love was the explosion that started it."

But what about all those ideas from books and movies that told me that "when I fall in love" that I will "be in love forever" ("You know, 'and they lived happily ever after' and stuff")?

When someone approaches marriage with these idealistic views of "being in love" then when, like everything else in life, those "explosive" feelings subside they think they are entitled to a change.  But what they don't realize is that with the change, the same thrill will soon wear off and then they will have to seek for a new and improved thrill, and so on, and so on.

It is like a young boy who watches the big, red fire engines scream down the street and dreams of one day driving one of those bright, shiny powerhouses one day.  But after 20 years on the job as a firefighter, the thrill of the big, red engine is now long gone.

Does that mean then that it would have been better not to have the dream in the first place?  Would it have been better to not dedicate your life to fighting fires?

No!  Because you will find that once the initial thrill wears off, then a quieter, more lasting interest sets in.  In fact, those people who are willing to watch the thrill absolve and settle down for the lasting interest are those who are most likely to meet new thrills in some different way in the future.  He or she will be more receptive to new thrills that will come from different directions. 

This is what Christ meant when he said that something would not really live until it first dies.  It is pointless to attempt to keep any thrill alive -- artificially prolonging the adrenalin.  The harder and harder you try, the weaker and weaker the thrill becomes and the fewer and fewer come your way -- that fishing boat is longer fun on the weekend, it is work, or that puppy that the kids could not live without is now spreading fleas around the house and tearing up your favorite shoes.  Someone who lives for thrills ends up bored and disillusioned with life. 

Rather, we should learn to joyfully let the thrill quietly die its own death so that we can enter into the deeper interest and happiness to follow and then we will find new surprises in areas we never dreamed of.

Also, some think of "falling in love" as something that is simply irresistible and just happens to you without any control over it.  Therefore, when someone who is married "falls in love" with someone new, they simply must throw everything away and run away with their new lover.  However, while we certainly may not be able to deny, nor should we, a deep admiration for the good qualities we see in another person, we should be careful not to confuse that with "being in love" with that new person.  In other words, the movement from "admiration" to "being in love with" or "loving" someone else is a choice that we are responsible for making.

Should the State Impose Christian View of Marriage?

Lewis argues that we must distinguish between two things:  the Christian conception of marriage and whether or not we ought to impose that idea of marriage upon society by embodying them in divorce laws.

Many Christians think that since they have a certain ideal of marriage that everyone ought to have the same ideal.  But if we live in a pluralistic society, we must be careful not to impose our specific views upon the general public.  After all, we would not take kindly if those of another religion were to try to impose their specific views upon us.  Lewis writes:

My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognize that the majority of the British people are not Christians, and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives.  

Therefore, we should clearly distinguish between those marriages sanctioned by the state and those sanctioned by the Church.  These distinctions should be quite sharp and clearly defined so that we know whether or not a couple is married in a Christian sense and which are not.

Finally, What About the Head of the House?  (Please don't shoot the messenger!)

Lewis, rightly begins, "something else, even more unpopular . . ." -- Christian wives promise to obey their husbands.  This brings up two questions:  (1) Why should there be a head at all -- why not equality AND (2) why should it be the man? 

The need for a head follows from the permanency of marriage.  When there is a disagreement that cannot be settled, there is no such thing as a majority vote in a marriage.  You either split up or someone has to make the decision for the family.

But why a man?  Lewis argues that even the wife sees in others how unnatural it is for a woman to rule their husbands.  Also, (please remember this is Lewis) the husband has to protect others from his wife's passionate and intense protection of her family (mother hen) -- the husband is more "just" to the outsiders.