When couples come to ministers to talk about their marriage ceremonies, ministers think it’s interesting to ask if they love one another. What a stupid question! How would they know? A Christian marriage isn’t about whether you’re in love. Christian marriage is giving you the practice of fidelity over a lifetime in which you can look back upon the marriage and call it love. It is a hard discipline over many years. – Stanley Hauerwas
No issues in the modern world seem to be pressing the Church with as much force as those surrounding sex and marriage. The so-called Sexual Revolution has, for the most part, succeeded in radically changing how our culture understands both matters. Drawing from a highly selective (and sometimes contradictory) set of political, sociological and scientific arguments, opponents of the Christian tradition are pressing the case for radical reform with an abandon that bears all of the hallmarks of a revolution. And they have moved into the ascendancy.
Those manning the barricades describe themselves as “defending marriage.” That is a deep inaccuracy: marriage, as an institution, was surrendered quite some time ago. Today’s battles are not about marriage but simply about dividing the spoils of its destruction. It is too late to defend marriage. Rather than being defended, marriage needs to be taught and lived. The Church needs to be willing to become the place where that teaching occurs as well as the place that can sustain couples in the struggle required to live it. Fortunately, the spiritual inheritance of the Church has gifted it with all of the tools necessary for that task. It lacks only people who are willing to take up the struggle.
Marriage laws were once the legal framework of a Christian culture. Despite the ravages of the Enlightenment and Reformation, the general framework of marriage remained untouched. The Church, in many lands, particularly those of English legal tradition, acted as an arm of the State while the State acted to uphold the Christian ideal of marriage. As Hauerwas noted in the opening quote, marriage as an institution was never traditionally about romantic love: it was about fidelity, stability, paternity and duty towards family. The traditional Western marriage rite never asked a couple, “Do you love him?” It simply asked, “Do you promise to love?” That simple promise was only one of a number of things:
WILT thou have this woman to thy wedded wife, to live together after God’s ordinance in the holy estate of Matrimony? Wilt thou love her, comfort her, honor, and keep her, in sickness, and in health? And forsaking all others, keep thee only to her, so long as you both shall live?
And this:
I N. take thee N. to my wedded wife, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness, and in health, to love and to cherish, until we are parted by death; according to God’s holy ordinance, and thereto I plight thee my troth.
Obviously, the primary intent of these promises was faithfulness in all circumstances over the course of an entire lifetime. The laws that surrounded marriage existed to enforce this promise and sought to make it difficult to do otherwise.
Divorce was difficult to obtain – long waiting periods were required and very specific conditions had to be met for one to be granted. Churches made remarriage quite difficult, to say the least. Obligations to children were very well-defined and grounded in parental (biological) rights and obligations. Indeed, there was a large complex of family laws that tilted the culture towards marriage at every turn.
Of course, none of this would have represented any benefit had it not also reflected a cultural consensus. Contrary to popular sayings, morality can indeed be legislated (laws do almost nothing else). But moral laws are simply experienced as oppression if they do not generally agree with the moral consensus of a culture. The laws upholding marriage were themselves a cultural consensus: people felt these laws to be inherently correct.
Parenthetically, it must be stated as well that the laws governing marriage and property were often tilted against women – that is a matter that I will not address in this present article.
The moral consensus governing marriage began to dissolve primarily in the Post-World War II era in Western cultures. There are many causes that contributed to this breakdown. My favorite culprit is the rapid rise in mobility (particularly in America) that destroyed the stability of the extended family and atomized family life.
The first major legal blow to this traditional arrangement was the enactment of “no-fault” divorce laws, in which no reasons needed to be given for a divorce. It is worth noting that these were first enacted in Russia in early 1918, shortly after the Bolshevik Revolution. The purpose (as stated in Wikipedia) was to “revolutionize society at every level.” That experiment later met with significant revisions. The first state to enact such laws in the U.S. was California, which did not do so until 1969. Such laws have since become normative across the country.
These changes in marriage law have been accompanied by an evolution in the cultural meaning of marriage. From the earlier bond of a virtually indissoluble union, marriage has morphed into a contractual agreement between two persons for their own self-defined ends. According to a 2002 study, by age 44, roughly 95 percent of all American adults have had pre-marital sex. For all intents, we may say that virtually all Americans, by mid-life, have had sex outside of marriage.
These are clear reasons for understanding that “defense of marriage” is simply too late. The Tradition has become passé. But none of this says that the Tradition is wrong or in any way incorrect.
Of course, there are many “remnants” of traditional Christian marriage. Most people still imagine that marriage will be for a life-time, though they worry that somehow they may not be so lucky themselves. Pre-nuptial agreements are primarily tools of the rich. Even same-sex relationships are professing a desire for life-long commitments.
But all of the sentiments surrounding life-long commitments are just that – sentiments. They are not grounded in the most obvious reasons for life-long relationships. Rather, they belong to the genre of fairy tales: “living happily ever after.”
The classical Christian marriage belongs to the genre of martyrdom. It is a commitment to death. As Hauerwas notes: faithfulness over the course of a life-time defines what it means to “love” someone. At the end of a faithful life, we may say of someone, “He loved his wife.”
Some have begun to write about the so-called “Benedict Option,” a notion first introduced by Alasdair MacIntyre in his book, After Virtue. It compares the contemporary situation to that of the collapse of the Roman Christian Imperium in the West (i.e., the Dark Ages). Christian civilization, MacIntyre notes, was not rebuilt through a major conquering or legislating force, but through the patient endurance of small monastic communities and surrounding Christian villages. That pattern marked the spread of Christian civilization for many centuries in many places, both East and West.
It would seem clear that a legislative option has long been a moot point. When 95 percent of the population is engaging in sex outside of marriage (to say the least) no legislation of a traditional sort is likely to make a difference. The greater question is whether such a cultural tidal wave will inundate the Church’s teaching or render it inert – a canonical witness to a by-gone time, acknowledged perhaps in confession but irrelevant to daily choices (this is already true in many places).
The “Benedict Option” can only be judged over the course of centuries, doubtless to the dismay of our impatient age. But, as noted, those things required are already largely in place. The marriage rite (in those Churches who refuse the present errors) remains committed to the life-long union of a man and a woman with clearly stated goals of fidelity. The canon laws supporting such marriages remain intact. Lacking is sufficient teaching and formation in the virtues required to live the martyrdom of marriage.
Modern culture has emphasized suffering as undesirable and an object to be remedied. Our resources are devoted to the ending of suffering and not to its endurance. Of course, the abiding myth of Modernity is that suffering can be eliminated. This is neither true nor desirable.
Virtues of patience, endurance, sacrifice, selflessness, generosity, kindness, steadfastness, loyalty, and other such qualities are impossible without the presence of suffering. The Christian faith does not disparage the relief of suffering, but neither does it make it definitive for the acquisition of virtue. Christ is quite clear that all will suffer. It is pretty much the case that no good thing comes about in human society except through the voluntary suffering of some person or persons. The goodness in our lives is rooted in the grace of heroic actions.
In the absence of stable, life-long, self-sacrificing marriages, all discussion of sex and sexuality is reduced to abstractions. An eloquent case for traditional families is currently being made by the chaos and dysfunction set in motion by their absence. No amount of legislation or social programs will succeed in replacing the most natural of human traditions. The social corrosion represented by our over-populated prisons, births outside of marriage (over 40 percent in the general population and over 70 percent among non-Hispanic African Americans), and similar phenomenon continue to predict a breakdown of civility on the most fundamental level. We passed into the “Dark Ages” some time ago. The “Benedict Option” is already in place. It is in your parish and in your marriage. Every day you endure and succeed in a faithful union to your spouse and children is a heroic act of grace-filled living.
We are not promised that the Option will be successful as a civilizational cure. Such things are in the hands of God. But we should have no doubt about the Modern Project going on around us. It is not building a Brave New World. It is merely destroying the old one and letting its children roam amid the ruins.
Comments
216 responses to “Marriage as a Lifetime of Suffering”
“Fr. Stephen brought up the *community around the parish* solution. But are there really enough people genuinely interested in it? It would require so many sacrifices…”
Agata, I think the sacrifices required are all that much harder because they go against the grain of Society, in general, now. Our Society prioritize (worship and adores) the individual at the cost of any true community, which is sacrificial, as you note. For a person to truly commit to such a parish community, a great deal of trust and humility would be required. The old saying, “it takes a village to raise a child” comes to mind; would we trust such a community to literally help us in raising our children? It is a truly daunting question; one of many that would need to be answered. Just my thoughts.
As a side tangent, of sorts, on marriage, this is an amazing speech and message. I wish I could have been there to stand and applaud.
http://cvcomment.org/2014/11/18/in-full-the-lord-sacks-speech-that-brought-the-vatican-conference-to-its-feet/
Obviously, I am at best of average intelligence, and I am a sinner full of passions. Who am I to disagree with St. Gregory of Nyssa? However, I smell a rat.
From the sacrament of marriage:
…O God most pure, Author of all creation, Who through Your man-befriending love transformed a rib of Adam the forefather into a woman, and blessed them and said, “Increase and multiply, and have dominion over the earth,” and, by the conjoining, declared them both to be one member, for because of this a man shall forsake his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and the two shall be one flesh‑and whom God has joined together let not man put asunder…Who out of the root of Jesse, according to the flesh, produced the Ever‑Virgin Mary, and from her were Incarnate-born for the salvation of the human race; Who through Your unspeakable Grace and plentiful goodness were present in Cana of Galilee, and blessed the marriage there, that You might show a lawful union, and a generation there from, is according to Your Will…
More:
**…a generation there from, is according to Your Will…**
More:
**…Blessed are You, O Lord our God, Holy Celebrant of mystical and pure marriage…**
Now, which is it? Is marriage pure and mystical, or is it “the last stopping place of {man/humanity} in their sad exile from paradise”.
If you can synthesize that, you can probably synthesize these:
Christ is risen
&
Christ is not risen
What I find sad is this apparent (gnostic?) rejection of God’s will and time concerning the Second Coming. Perhaps St. Gregory and Elder Sophrony should have been readers of science fiction, for which the “Doomsday Device” is a common theme. This is the hypothetical bomb powerful enough to destroy the world. Such a thing would certainly “bring forward” the Second Coming and be significantly more efficacious than waiting for everyone to find their monastic vocation.
This “first will”, pre-lapsarian “state of being” that is being alleged monastics are striving for, seems to be at the root of all this. It appears to be to be based on a speculative reading/emphasis of Genesis, even though male/female and “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” (Gen 2:14) occurs BEFORE, not after the fall. Dino says:
“…one that would not have happened Crucificialy according to the ‘first will’ of God for man”
But it DID happen, it DID. As Fr. Stephen has pointed out ( https://glory2godforallthings.com/2007/04/03/the-lamb-slain-from-the-foundation-of-the-world/ ) we only live one life and there is only one Christ – and He is a crucified life, and ours is a crucified life. There is no “back to the garden” because paradise is now forward through the Cross. Not have happened “Crucificialy” is an abstraction, and as Fr. Stephen says it is “not the story we have”. Is monasticism built upon another story than the Christian one? Surely not.
I tell you this, if marriage is not mystical and holy, if it is a “concession”, a mere “economy” to our passions – if it is the “last sad stopping place”, then as Flannery O’Conner would probably say then “To hell with it!”…
The pre-lapsarian account in Genesis 2 clearly indicates to me that the male-female bond and synergy, even without carnal sexuality, is integral to fulfilling God’s will for His creation.
I tend to agree with Christopher.
However, the carnal/erotic/procreation element of our sexuality is clearly post-lapsarian but still an integral part of the economia of our salvation is it not?
There have been many cases of ill-formed monks using these concepts as a bludgeon on married folks heads.
Is it better to remain celibate than to marry a second time–yes all else being equal but in our world with the collapse of the extended family and scattering of parish communities into simple parishes, it is quite difficult for women with children especially to do that. Life insurance which began in the US as a way of establishing widow and orphan funds can provide the money in the case of death, but divorce frequently impoverishes the family.
As far as marrying a second time, I can only speak for myself. When my wife died, I tried for several years to remain single. In my case, I could not do it. I was too lonely and, frankly–dying. That did not seem to me to be something that God would want so I went looking for a God loving woman. By His grace, He brought me such a woman who was in a similar place. We were married in unusual circumstances.
Despite that, my bishop (a true monastic BTW) has repeatedly assured me that God has blessed my marriage. The unspoken meaning was “What God has cleansed, call thou not unclean.” I can see the blessing not only in my own life and my wife’s but in the general fecundity that surrounds us and allows us to help others in need in a ad hoc extended family.
The societal and cultural situation in which the early Fathers were commenting on marriage was decidedly different than now.
Given our brokenness that Fr. Stephen noted above, the ideal way of virginity can quickly become an unnecessary burden for most of us in the world who have neither a monastic calling nor even easy access to a monastery. But, I am a carnal man and not one who should really be discoursing on chastity let alone virginity.
I’ve been watching Christopher’s (and everyone’s) perturbations on marriage from a distance, not wanting to interject here. It struck me that there’s definitely something interesting going on in this comment thread, but the most recent post from Christopher concerns me when he states that he “smells a rat.”
Marriage is a sacrament, or at least it is not not a sacrament.
At the same time, the Fathers are pretty clear in stating that marriage is a concession, or an unfortunate necessity, or something similar. This is almost universal from St. Paul to St. Gregory of Nyssa to St. John Chrysostom, and beyond. (I have been thinking often of St. John Chrysostom’s statement that the purpose of marriage is to teach chastity and to procreate, but since we should be concerned with our spiritual children rather than our biological children, its chief purpose is to teach chastity.)
There’s a universal, unified voice that marriage is a sacramental concession to our fallen nature. It’s true that this is paradoxical, but could anything be more Christian than a paradox?
I, too, share Christopher “average intelligence”, and admit that I don’t know how to harmonize these two strong strains that are so often evident even in the same paragraph, but I can at least accept that they are both there. Rather than shying towards making St. Gregory somehow heterodox, I think some humility and prayer on the matter would better serve him.
But please don’t take me too seriously. I am both a poorly read theological lightweight, and a sinner, whose words on these matters are hardly worth reading.
Michael,
“….. so I went looking for a God loving woman….”
How did you go about that? 🙂
Christopher,
I am afraid you do not understand St Gregory -and as a result misconstrue the entire tradition of what is, the heart of hearts of Orthodoxy (monasticism). [Of course this is not so much in its capacity as ‘virginity’, no; it is in its capacity as ‘Hesychasm’.]
When St Gregory says “the last stopping place” (τῆς ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ ζωῆς τὸ τελευταῖον ὁ γάμος ἐστί) or better: “the final stage of Paradisial life is Marriage”, he is talking of the reverse route back to the Holy of Holies of Paradisial life, which starts by this last stage (marriage) and then progresses further and further…
Christopher, et al
Reading between the lines, you might have gathered that I’m not terribly happy with the way St. Gregory approaches the topic of marriage. I generally don’t like to set myself in opposition to the Fathers. As I noted earlier, they have to be read in a their own context. And they are not read alone. They have to be balanced, for example, with the marriage rite itself (which trumps theologically). I can pull out rather horrendous quotes from one father or another (I know of one in St. Gregory the Theologian on a different topic that I’ll not mention). The Fathers are touchstones, as is the whole life of the Church. But they should not serve as a source for a new fundamentalism. We should not do to them what they did not do to themselves or one another. They argued with each other.
I do not say this to in any way undermine anyone’s confidence in the teaching of the Orthodox Church. But we are not in a competition with Protestants or Rome. We do not have to assert that we are “more right” than someone else, or the excellence of our sources or our authorities, etc. We are Orthodox. The One Church from the beginning. We are what we are and God preserves us. Sometimes we argue. Sometimes things are utterly clear and unchangeable. But not everything is always clear.
Fr. Thomas Hopko said repeatedly that there needed to be a word for our time on the subject of male and female. He didn’t say this so suggest that the Church change anything. Rather, he said that the present-day trials surrounding gender-related issues would be (and probably already are) as great a trial as the 4th century’s battle with Arianism. Nicaea said nothing new in refuting Arianism, but it had to say what the Church had always known in a new manner so that it could be clearly taught and understood. I think the same is true of gender.
A gender-related matter of the deepest import, of course, is marriage. The Church’s teaching is clear, and yet has to be stated in a way that rightly addresses the new misunderstandings that are rising around us. Monasticism has a part in this conversation as well.
I think that it is deeply problematic to describe the conjugal union as inherently sinful. It is only “sinful” in the sense that it participates in the life of death and corruption. But this is true of everything we do. Eating, sleeping, sweating, etc. There is a dangerous point at which the critique of the “post-lapsarian” world slips into Manichaeism, an inherent disdain for the material world. Though the Manichaean heresy was largely in the West, it had some kinship with certain Platonic strains. There was in Origen’s work, a theory of a “double-creation.” That is, first, a spiritual or noetic creation (paradise), and then a fall into materiality. This is obviously heretical. But there are strains of it, greatly altered into an Orthodox form, in both St. Gregory of Nyssa and St. Maximus. This strain of thought can be troublesome and has to be handled with great care.
For myself, I prefer to teach on the goodness of marriage and that the “marriage bed is undefiled.” Eating, as noted earlier, also participates in death and corruption, yet God has made it the means of our salvation. When we say that something exists by “economy,” we should be careful not to mean that it is “second best.” We are not in competition with a theoretical pre-lapsarian world. We live in the economy of grace where things that the enemy might mean to us for evil, the Lord means to us for good. Such is His mercy!
Michael,
The Fathers also remind us that Adam did witness the “male-female” relationship when naming the animals, but at that time he was living the ultimate hesychastic relationship of him alone towards God alone (there was no Partner yet). But God exclaimed that this ‘first will’ (which many Saints fulfilled later to the outmost “alone, with God alone” -culminating with the Theotokos in the Temple-) was not good for him (this being in exclusive relationship to Him) since He foresaw that it would be perceived by him as ‘above his nature’ to not feel alone. The hesychasts that achieved this are described as clearly living ‘above nature’. No doubt…. Living in paradise along with Eve before the fall is then considered ‘according to nature’ and anything afterwards (including ‘natural’ death) is considered (and intuited by the human soul) as not ‘according to nature’, ‘below’…
It’s pretty unanimous stuff. Pretty scandalous obviously too. Not platonic though… Very farm from it
Micheal says:
“However, the carnal/erotic/procreation element of our sexuality is clearly post-lapsarian but still an integral part of the economia of our salvation is it not?”
Is it? I see the fact (ontological fact?) of marriage before the fall, I see male and female (which clearly indicates sex genitalia, no?) before the fall. I see they were “unashamed” about these facts. I see silence about what procreation was (if anything) before the fall. I see a “multiplication” of “sorrows” and “conception” – the pain – but is a multiplication a new creation of sex/procreation also? What is exactly meant by a “multiplication” (of) “conception”?
Matth says:
“At the same time, the Fathers are pretty clear in stating that marriage is a concession, or an unfortunate necessity, or something similar. This is almost universal from St. Paul to St. Gregory of Nyssa to St. John Chrysostom”
Is it the consensus? If I am reading Fr. Sergei correctly it is not a “universal” view and yes, while the many of the “big names” hold to it there are others (St. Augustine being the only seeming “big name”) that do not. If true, what is a “Holy” or “Mystical concession” in this context? Also, why is virginity defined over and against a “Blessed/Holy/Mystical concession”, what does that mean? I mean these questions sincerely and not rhetorically.
Dino,
I am not sure as to what your translation work adds – except I note that you did not include the word “sad” – is it not in the greek?
Also, if the “heart of hearts” of Orthodoxy is monasticism, does that mean monasticism is some sort of “mediator” (The RC image of the Theotokos as “mediatrix” comes to mind) between Christians who are not monastics (which, again, is almost every Christian that was or is) and Christ? Is the call of the Christ and his Kingdom *necessarily* a monastic call or path?
Christopher,
no, the word ‘sad’ is not in the original in any capacity and, to repeat, St Gregory is speaking of a route to Paradisial Theosis in reverse when he say “last stage”. i.e.: the first stage when walking back to whence we came from…
As far as monasticism as heart of hearts of Orthodoxy goes, it is -to repeat- in its capacity as Heyschasm that this is . Have you read Fr J. Romanides on this for example…?
Yes the over vast majority of the Church is “in the world”, just as over the vast majority of Her saints are monastics.
But if a married person could somehow maintain a 6 hour night-time prayer rule, a daily liturgical life, a quiet profession (say, a gardening job for instance) as well as keeping their spouse and children happy – therefore living hesychastically (which wasn’t that rare at all in centuries past) – then they would certainly be a Hesychast too.
So it is not ‘virginity’ so much, but, virginity’s suggestion of ‘hesychastic exclusivity’ (a consecrated-to-God mode of being, an icon of the life of the Theotokos, John the Baptist, John the Theologian etc)
Agata, primarily through prayer to the Theotokos as my foundation. I asked her every day to send me a Godly woman. Then, I went on line looking for Orthodox women. No go. Then, my now wife, popped up on Match.com as a 95% match. I contacted her mostly out of a belief that the computer was wrong and the rest, as they say, is history. Three months after we met in person, we were married; despite the almost universal advice from friends and the direction of my confessor that we not proceed because 1. she had been married three times before, and 2. the celibate life was the better way once my first wife died.
Only my brother, an Orthodox priest, was steadfast in his support. My bishop worked out a way for us once he realized we were determined to push ahead in seeming disobedience (at least me).
My wife is one of those people who was basically Orthodox and just didn’t know it. In fact she had been told she was Orthodox-and-didn’t-know=it by an acquaintance of hers several years before I met her. I help her understand her faith in an Orthodox manner—she demonstrates to me what real faith is all about. She is the kindest person I have ever known–often to her own detriment (or so it seems). She is so kind that she actually likes me as well as loves me. That is rare indeed. Having her as a partner makes it at least possible to live as a Christian husband should. She makes it easy. (And she is a strong-willed, independent farm girl) She loves the Lord more. She knows Him in a way I have yet to approach.
Despite the blessing we have received, I would never advise anyone else to do what we did. In fact, I would advise folks not to do what we did–just as we were rightly warned not to.
Way too many possible complications and delicate tipping points along the way that could have dumped both of us into the dumpster. Glory to God that did not happen.
In the end, I think God was exceedingly merciful (unmerited) to us both because ultimately we were choosing life over death with Him in mind.
Could we have done it without each other, perhaps but God granted us the mercy not to have to bear that much. He has given us other things to do that entail sweat and tears, prayer and fasting, falling down and getting back up that neither one of us could accomplish alone. It takes all three of us.
I would advise however, that anyone looking for a mate (first and only one) pray diligently to the Theotokos in faith, hope and joy. Then open yourself to whomever she puts in your path in humility and thanksgiving.
I feel that comments have swallowed the article. I’ve turned off further comments on this article. My last thoughts can be found in my last comment.
Fr. Stephen
Michael,
Thank you. That is a great story (probably hard to repeat), and you and your wife have received a great gift and blessing.
So, as always, prayer is the answer. And our most Holy Lady Theotokos is the one who helps most…
You story reminds me of something I read about the life of St. Anthony the Great (the great founder of monasticism, no less…).
When St. Anthony was tempted to think that no one has reached his perfection, “the heavens opened up above him and he heard: Oh Anthony, Anthony, you have struggled. But there is a doctor in Alexandria who is married, and he and his wife feed the poor, take care of the sick, and all day long, they sing the Thrice Holy Hymn. Anthony, you have not achieved 1/2 of what they have…”.
There are saints among those who are married for sure…. They are just a little more hidden for some reason.
Christopher,
First off, “as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk.”
But to the question you ask, if this is the universal consensus (this talk of married life as a blessed way which somehow, without being “second best”, is one of two ways, and the ‘other way’ –monasticism- is as different from marriage as the ‘heavens form the earth’ – to quote Chrysostom)…
St Paul in 1 Corinthians, chapter 7 is dead clear on this and is the one consistently quoted throughout the entire Orthodox tradition for two millennia now regarding on this scandalous issue.
His “It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband”, describes what Matth referred to as, “the Fathers are pretty clear in stating that marriage is a concession, or an unfortunate necessity, or something similar”. [when –and only when- they are actually making this comparison to celibacy for the sake of the Lord]
His, “For I would that all men were even as I myself”, re-enforces the greatness of “celibacy for the Lord” yet again.
He even has to clarify in case of misunderstandings (as we seem to be getting here) “But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin marry, she hath not sinned. Nevertheless such shall have trouble in the flesh…” adding the true (and pragmatic for a believer) perspective, “the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; […] And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away.”
The culmination of his assertion comes as a practical, fatherly counsel for the need of a context conducive to Hesychasm (the notion that one must “be still to know God”), in his words: “But I would have you without cares. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife. There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband. And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.”
But let’s close with ‘let every man, wherein he is called, therein abide with God’, and
“Let every man abide in the same calling wherein he was called.” (1 Cor 7:20)
[…] “It is too late to defend marriage. Rather than being defended, marriage needs to be taught and lived. The Church needs to be willing to become the place where that teaching occurs as well as the place that can sustain couples in the struggle required to live it. Fortunately, the spiritual inheritance of the Church has gifted it with all of the tools necessary for that task. It lacks only people who are willing to take up the struggle.” — Father Stephen Freeman, “Marriage as a Lifetime of Suffering” […]