Monthly Archives: July 2011

Draft thoughts – drop me comments!
For marriage to have value, it must mean something. Thus, in order to determine what marriage is, we must first understand what it means. As an aid to analysis, I classify every possible definition of marriage falls into one of three categories; subjective, objective or transcendent. I define subjective definitions as any which depend ultimately upon the judgement or decision of one or more persons, objective as any which depend not upon human judgement or decision but on another fixed standard, and transcendent those which derive their origin in any entity which exists above and beyond the limits of material experience.

Subjective Definitions of Marriage

Let us first treat the subjective definitions of marriage, and discuss their necessary consequence for the meaning of marriage. Here are a few subjective definitions of marriage:

• “Marriage is just a piece of paper” (Psychology Today, 2002)
• “a more or less durable connection between male and female lasting beyond the mere act of propagation till after the birth of the offspring” (Westermarck, 1921)
• “marriage is between a man and a woman” (Bush, G. W. 2003)
• “the institution whereby men and women are joined in a special kind of social and legal dependence for the purpose of founding and maintaining a family” (Merriam-Webster, as of 2003)
• “the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law; 2: the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage” (Merriam-Webster, 2006)
  “Marriage is the legally recognized union of two people.  Gender-specific terms relating to the marital relationship or familial relationships, including without limitation “spouse,” “family,” “marriage,” “immediate family,” “dependent,” “next of kin,” “bride,” “groom,” “husband,” “wife,” “widow,” and “widower,” shall be construed to be gender-neutral for all purposes throughout the law, whether in the context of statute, administrative or court rule, policy, common law, or any other source of civil law” (Vermont, state law 2008)

If that were all we knew of the definition of marriage (and it isn’t – there’s plenty more where they came from) then what would we conclude that marriage means? Wouldn’t we have to conclude that to say someone is married means no more than to say someone’s called Joe? If one party holds to one thing as a part of marriage, another party contradicts it, and there is nothing to stop either party later contradicting themselves.

But, isn’t the law different? Surely the fact that there’s a law quoted above changes things? Well, no. A law is only the representation of the decision of a group of people, and as such it is by definition subjective in all that it has to define. The fact that in many parts of the United States the legal definition of marriage changes at the state line, two laws in open contradiction as to the definition, is rather a strong proof that it is only subjective. And, that which is subjective, has no ultimate meaning.

Indeed, you cannot say that marriage has meaning if the meaning of marriage depends upon the way that marriage happens to be defined by your culture, legislature or social circle. This is easily demonstrated by considering these three points:

1. X directly determines attribute A of Y
2. Y has no bearing upon change to X
3. Hence attribute A of Y is not a characteristic of Y but a passive reflection of X

That is, because a subjective (e.g. cultural) definition may change at any time, and does not recognise any extrinsic constraint from marriage, then any presumed meaning of marriage derived from a subjective definition is only information about the culture and not in fact about marriage.

Objective Definitions of Marriage

Let us now move on to the objective definition of marriage. The dominant argument here is that of ‘natural law’. This is a good argument, and it stems from a high regard of what seems to be the clear natural way of things, both in terms of suitability and end. Particularly important within this particular school of thought is the link between marriage and procreation. The natural way of things requires a man and a woman in order to procreate, and the raising of children requires a minimum amount of stability and provision as a human child is unable to fend for himself for some years. Statistics abound, not to mention common sense, that back up the position of two parents being better than one – pointing, according to this argument, to a natural law definition of marriage as a long term, presumably monogamous, sexual relationship between a man and a woman, with the end of bearing children.

Is that a good argument? I think it has some merit and helps to explain a lot; but I am afraid I have to dismiss it unless someone can present it to me in a rigourous form. The problem I have with the argument is that it is not actually objective; but is at root subjective. It relies upon the agreement of individuals or communities on what seems to be natural, and what seems to be unnatural. Generally, there is a much higher level of agreement here than in the former set of definitions; but there is still disagreement. There are communities who encourage polygamy, those who practice same-sex marriage, others which happily allow a marriage to end after just days, and most of these also celebrate marriages between those who are (through age, nature or mishap) unable to raise children.

Yes, we do learn something from the natural law argument; but it is, unfortunately, not rigorous enough and still means that (as the argument is presented) what is said to be the meaning of marriage depends upon the decisions agreed upon by one or more persons. We have not escaped subjectivity, and those who rest on this argument alone cannot avoid the conclusion that if our understanding of what seems natural changes then so does the definition of marriage.

Transcendent definitions of Marriage

Finally, we’ll treat the concept of a transcendent definition of marriage. This, we’ve said, is one which derives its authority or ultimate reference from an entity which operates and exists outside of the limits of known material existence. I am going to make the case that the only way in which marriage can have any meaning in and of itself is if it depends upon a transcendent definition. The basis on which I make this claim is twofold; first, that all other definitions are subjective (as we have seen), and second, because a transcendent definition is not subjective (as I am to demonstrate).

In order for a definition not to be subjective it is necessary that no step within the formulation of its content depends upon the decision of man. By content, I mean the necessary logical or factual data which defines it, rather than specific forms of wording provided they accurately record the same logical or factual data. By decision of man, I mean a point at which it is down to man to decide or determine in some manner the degree, extent, presence or absence of any part of that definition.

A transcendent source is one which in its origin does not involve man, and in its content does not rely upon the decision of man; as such, I argue, it alone can explain what marriage is in itself rather than what a culture’s current view happens to be.

God, who alone can give define marriage

I have in mind a solution which I think resolves all the underlying issues; and that is the specific transcendent source, God. God, who transcends space and time, is uniquely in a position to define marriage and actually give meaning in doing so. This means that if God says marriage means X, then it means X – even if the whole of humanity were to hold to a contradictory position.

So, how has God described marriage for us? He has done so in two ways, first through the order, design and purpose with which we were created, essentially the same pattern of nature that is observed through the natural law argument. However, the natural law argument fails to establish the validity of its observations in the divine origin of the order of creation – and that is the biggest hole in that argument. Only when natural law is in itself transcendently anchored can it move towards a more objective position and be able to express meaning. Yet, it is the second way in which God reveals what marriage means that is the more important. The second way is through his word as he has expressed it in Holy Scripture. When we go to the Bible we move away from the decision-based interpretations of natural law (which can vary, have varied, and indeed even now vary between cultures and times) because we’ve removed the step of moving from observation to generalisation. I argue that whilst natural law has some theoretical merit, given the limitations on human interpretation of events and patterns, the true meaning of marriage is to be derived most clearly and universally from the Bible.

From this position it is therefore essential for anyone who seeks to define marriage or understand its meaning to start with the Bible. He will find much in the Bible of particular reference to marriage, and whole books have been written on the subject. For our purposes I will confine the discussion to only one main point – and that is the Biblical explanation for the origin and form of marriage and therein its actual meaning.

Right at the beginning of the Bible, before sin and death had entered, and when we still see things exactly as they should be – we find the history of the creation of Adam and Eve. Genesis chapter 2 tells us that:

“the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. And the rib that the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said, ‘This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.’ (Genesis 2:21-23). Immediately after this, we are told about marriage, for we read “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. (Genesis 2:24)

It’s a short statement but a very important one. Here, God, who unlike man is able to speak meaning into marriage, declares a number of things:

1. That marriage is instituted by God and reflects his purpose and work in creation
2. That marriage is between a man and a woman
3. That it involves a man moving away from his parents and to his wife
4. That the nature of the marriage bond is that of a man and a woman becoming only one flesh

As to the first, it upholds the argument of this paper; for it is God’s testimony that he is the one who defines marriage. If we are to reject God’s position as the one who defines and speaks meaning into marriage, then we must also reject God.

To the second, this is striking in its clarity; not only do we see the two gender-specific roles within marriage, but it is set in the immediate context of the creation of the two genders. There is no ambiguity whatsoever on this point.

The third helps us to explain the natural law observations concerning the family unit; yet it also shows that this action finds its root not in what seems naturally sensible, but in what God has ordained for man. The natural law position, unless it is defined explicitly as God’s divine order as expressed in creation, runs the risk of taking from God the glory due him for his sovereign work in creating the family unit.

The fourth is the most important; for it speaks not just to the pattern or the meaning – but more deeply, to the essence or basis. Here, as well as in other places of Scripture, we learn that when a man and a woman are joined together as man and wife, they become one flesh. They are no longer two, but they are one – and this in itself is an act of God. Thus, the marriage bond whilst it may be visibly expressed by a man and a woman before witnesses is actually a bond produced by God himself. This is true of all marriages in accordance with God’s revealed institution, whether the parties know God or whether they deny him.

The necessary consequence of this fourth point brings us right to the heart of the modern debate about marriage. There are many who believe they can redefine marriage in a way contrary to God’s word. Setting aside for now the sin of departing from God’s work – we see there is a much deeper problem with their attempts. The deeper problem is that any two persons who are not coupled together according to God’s word are not joined together by God as one flesh. If they are not joined together by God as one flesh, then they are not married. Thus, the meaning of marriage does not in any way apply to them; while they might pretend the term “marriage” yet it is impossible for them (even if supported by the very strongest of legislation) to ever be married, for it is impossible for them to force God to join them as one flesh.