A professor at Notre Dame once lamented to me that the parents he encounters don’t worry that their kids will engage in sexual activity during their undergraduate career. Rather, they fret that students will come home engaged to be married. Forty years ago, who could have imagined that parents would want their children to prolong their “wild” years and put off the responsibilities of grown-up life?
–Naomi Schaefer Riley in a review of Mark Regnerus and Jeremy Uecke’s new book “Premarital Sex in America,” Commentary (February 2011), p.59
How we have come full circle. This reminds me of an anecdote from the 16th century highlighted by (IIRC) Steve Ozment the historian to crystalise Catholic vs Protestant attitudes to marriage and the family.
A young man was off at university for his family hoped he would enter the priesthood. His family became concerned that he was toying with protestant ideas. When he came home he had a woman with him, and with some trepidation they asked him who she was. He replied, “My wife.” His uncle threw up his hands in horror. “It would have been better if she was your prostitute” was his response.
What was a scandal focused on the priesthood is today a feature of secular life. We now, like then, need to recover the Reformer’s vision of marriage and family as something unqualifiedly good that is the context in which the common life occurs. Like then, it will be a clear sign in our context of what is radically different about our vision of the good life.
Premarital sex can cause difficulties bonding with a marriage partner and being faithful because it creates powerful ‘one flesh’ emotional and spiritual bonds with that person that God did not mean to be broken. Without marriage vows before God, these people have trespassed sacred boundaries. The sacred boundary trespass also occurs in sexual, physical and emotional abuse and lust and envy.
In prayer ministry, we have the person/s renounce and break emotional (soul) ties with all prior partners and then promise chastisty until they marry. This is essential for a good marriage. Even over-meshed, unhealthy, abusive family ties should be named, broken, corrected before marriage. All hurts done by and to us, all dependencies to people, substance, behavior, things should be named, owned, confessed, dealt with and often grieved for a while, until the person’s heart and mind are restored and reunited completely to God’s heart, mind, will and word.
The modern church has forgotten what the ancient church knew about sin and evil and washing and restoring souls.
Clarification: Premarital sex can cause difficulties bonding with *another later* marriage partner and being faithful because it creates powerful ‘one flesh’ emotional and spiritual bonds *are created* with a *sexual partner* that God did not mean to be broken.
Something over 40% of US adults are single. A theology that shapes both christian marriage and singleness is sorely needed.
John Paul the Great already did this. There is a small and growing industry of Catholic writers and speakers trying to popularize and help apply the Theology of the Body. Absolutely beautiful.
I think Our Lord and St. Paul did it first. What I mean is a theology that is actually suited to an Anglican context. As great as JPII’s theology of the body is (and I use some stuff inspired by it to teach and reflect with my own kids) the chance of it being appropriated by churches in the Anglican family, of any tradition except Anglo-Papalist, is slim to none.
Agreed that TOB is not new and grows out of reflections on the biblical witness. It also resonates deeply with the Trinitarian and Incarnational impulses, something that Anglicans should hold in common with Roman Catholics and many other Christians. And it even affirms the best impulses of feminism (i.e. that women are indeed fully human and must not be treated as objects for gratification or exploitation), while not requiring one to reject or complementary understandings of gender.
One does not have to accept particular RC dogmas to see the wisdom and truth of TOB. While it does reinforce the RC view on contraception, that is a consequence rather than a premise of the work. And that is a consequence that more non-RC folks are starting to appreciate. On the other hand, unfortunately the penetration of TOB into the RC mainstream is still a work in progress.
It is very depressing to think about doing theology that would be “suited to an Anglican context”. I’m not even sure what this would look like — how could Anglicanism come to an understanding honoring traditional moral commitments and biblical interpretation and emanating from our core creedal commitments that would be held across the (even orthodox) spectrum? How would it look any different than TOB? Would it be simple moralism — “We agree the following practices are bad”? Would it be a light-weight version of TOB, without the inconvenient consequences for family planning or those who may struggle with a call to the consecrated single life?
But communicating in a way that speaks to a local ecclesial culture matters, doesn’t it? Using local idiom isn’t necessarily depressing or a sign of failure. If we used materials prepared for American RC parishes – as all the popular TOB stuff I have seen is – some/many folks may never get much beyond the fact that it is written for RCs, quotes RC theologians or Councils that we may not agree are authoritative etc.
Driver8,
I misunderstand what you mean — too long in mainline churches where “we need a theology…” usually is a sign that something bad is about to happen :). I agree that just picking up the RC materials and transporting them to another parish setting would be met with resistance at best. But that is a separate issue from assessing the truth of TOB. It would be interesting to see if some modern Anglican theologians and pastors could adapt the presentations of TOB toward Anglican contexts. That could be a very fruitful Anglican-Roman Catholic dialogue — what of TOB inherently requires RC commitments versus our common Trinitarian heritage or is even accessible to people of other or no faiths?
However, I will stand by my remark that getting the (even orthodox) factions within Anglicanism to reach a consensus on something like TOB would be difficult, as there is currently even not broad consensus on gender roles among the ACNA leadership (to take one example that could be touched by such discussions).