PUPLIC ORTHODOXY
The title of the working document “The Sacrament of Marriage and Its Impediments”
appears to promise a meaningful teaching on the spousal relationship.
Instead, much of the document is devoted to a particular, modern vision
of family. Beginning with the central claim of §I.1 regarding the
dangers posed by secularization and moral relativism to the institution
of the family, over half the paragraphs of Section I address
relationships deemed incongruous with the purported Orthodox model of
family, mixed with claims about the welfare of civil society. While much
can be said, the following essay offers a cursory examination of the
scripture passages supporting this view, along with an exploration of
biblical passages that belie this facile model.
Paragraph I.2 uses Genesis 2:23 as a proof text for the institution
of marriage, founded simultaneously with the creation of Adam and
Eve. Here “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” is interpreted as
referring to the conjugal bond between a husband and wife. However, a
brief examination of scripture shows that the Hebrew idiom is more
flexible than this.
Limiting ourselves to the J sources of Genesis (for consistency of
usage within a particular time and context), two other passages should
be considered. First, in Genesis 29:14 Laban declares to his son-in-law
Jacob, “Surely you are my bone and my flesh.” Then in Genesis 37:27,
Judah suggests that he and his brothers sell Joseph into slavery rather
than kill him “for he is our brother, our own flesh.”
The Hebrew bashar (בשר), translated in the LXX as sarx
(σάρξ), has a denotative meaning of “flesh,” but the Hebrew idiom can
also connote kinship more broadly, including a variety of relationships
both consanguineous and nonconsanguineous. As such, the emphasis that
the document lays on Genesis 2:23 as the foundation of marriage is too
narrow.
On the whole, references to the family in the document tend to
support a new understanding of marriage and family worked out within the
church when the imminent return of the Lord did not materialize as
quickly as expected, a vision that often conflates spiritual goods with
the welfare of civil society. The emphasis placed on marriage as the
guarantor of “the safety and formation of children” (§I.5) focuses too
exclusively on one particular configuration of the family without regard
to many others, including foster parenting, adoption, and
multigenerational homes where grandparents and extended family members
provide primary care. Further, §I.8 ties the good of marriage
exclusively to family: “[marriage] is the center of the family, and the
family justifies marriage.” Such singularity of vision and purpose does
not adequately reflect the multiple meanings of marriage and family
found in scripture.
Jesus himself tells us that his message will bring enmity to
biological families and between in-laws (Matthew 10:34-39; Luke
12:49-53). In response to the demands of biological kinship, he
provocatively redefines family as those who hear the word of God (Mark
3:31-35, Matthew 12:46-50) and do it (Luke 8:19-21). Luke’s gospel
depicts the most radically anti-family Jesus of all: “Whoever comes to
me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and
sisters, yes, and even life itself, cannot be my disciple” (Luke 14:26).
Taking Jesus’ words to the extreme leads to encratism. However, the
other extreme, one-sided emphasis on biological family, runs the risk of
becoming idolatrous.
Further exploration reveals changing attitudes toward marriage even
within the Church’s own history. For example, Genesis 2:24—surprisingly
absent from the document—explains that the newly married couple forsakes
the prior bonds of their families of origin to forge a new bond
characterized as becoming “one flesh.” Jesus (Mark 10:7-8a, Matthew
19:5), the Apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 6:16), and the author of
Ephesians (5:31) all allude to this passage in their objections to
divorce and, in the epistles, as an allusion to the indissoluble bond
between Christ and his Church. Canon law has also mitigated the prohibition against divorce in particular circumstances, including episcopal election (Trullo 48).
In addition to the metaphor of marriage between Christ and the Church
(Ephesians 5:29-32), Paul recommends marriage as a remedy to those who
would otherwise burn (1 Corinthians 7:9), while the Yahwist creation
narrative excerpted above sees the creation of a suitable helper as a
safeguard against loneliness (Genesis 2:18). A multiplicity of meanings
for marriage is consonant with both scripture and the broader Orthodox
interpretive tradition.
A related issue is encountered in the document’s treatment of mixed
marriages in which Orthodox Christians enter into civil marriage with
either non-Orthodox Christians or non-believing spouses. In §II.5,
sacramental marriage is limited to Orthodox couples. A blessing may be
extended to a mixed-Christian couple for the sake of their children (who
must, by agreement, be raised in the Orthodox faith). Marriage to
non-Christians is strictly forbidden. While the document stops short of
the Old Testament injunction that the Jews divorce from their gentile
spouses (Ezra 10), it fails to explore Paul’s instructions in 1
Corinthians 7:12-15 (cited but left unexamined in §I.6) as pastoral oikonomia that hopes for the sanctification of the unbelieving spouse within the marital relationship.
Perhaps most sorely missing from the document is the Orthodox
teaching on marriage as a vehicle for theosis. Marriage offers both the
chance to lay down one’s life for another (John 15:13) and the
opportunity for practices described in Ephesians 5:15-20, so often
overlooked while focusing on the subsequent verses. An exploration of
the ascesis of mutual edification and self-giving would be welcome in a
document addressing the sacramental understanding of marriage, a
teaching rooted in scripture and coming into greater clarity over time.
This all too short survey shows the biblical witness regarding
marriage is quite complicated. From the flesh idiom of Genesis, to
Jesus’ stern words for those who prioritize family over discipleship, to
the redeployed vision of marriage as an icon of Christ and the Church,
scripture preserves a variety of teachings. Orthodox tradition adds
further nuance. A nuanced teaching on marriage and family will take into
account the fullness of this tradition.
This essay was sponsored by the Orthodox Theological Society in
America’s Special Project on the Great and Holy Council and published by
the Orthodox Christian Studies Center of Fordham University.Bryce E. Rich is a doctoral candidate in theology at the University of Chicago.
Fr. Robert M. Arida is rector and dean of Holy Trinity Orthodox Cathedral in Boston.
Susan Ashbrook Harvey is Professor of Religious Studies at Brown University.
David Dunn is an independent scholar who writes on Orthodoxy and religion and politics.
Teva Regule is a doctoral candidate in the theology department at Boston College.
Maria McDowell, an independent scholar of Christian ethics and Orthodox theology, belonged for many years to the Orthodox Church and is now a communicant in the Episcopal Church U.S.A.