Failure to make a positive difference in the direction of the culture could have been predicted—it was only a matter of time until the decline accelerated. The problem we face is not a diminished ability on our part to debate human sexuality rather it is a diminished willingness within the culture to acknowledge the existence of the soul that stewards the body.
When the discussion lacks a spiritual foundation the debate conforms to the reality of materialists. The following passages illustrate that fatal turn in the direction of arguments rooted in the world of biology:
In a word, marriage as a social reality has existed throughout human history in order to to regulate sexual activity between men and women for the good of society and the next generation. For all of marriage’s glories and freedoms, marriage as a social reality is largely about society telling both married and unmarried men and women whom they may not have sex with.
In the absence of moral, social or prudential considerations, few men would be inclined to limit their pursuit of this goal to a single woman. Promiscuity, after all, can be a highly successful reproductive strategy for the individual male as well as a successful recreational one. A promiscuous male can potentially father many more children than a male who forms a stable partnership with one woman, because he can father multiple children simultaneously.
A father and mother who have brought children into the world are uniquely responsible for them—responsible for their very existence—and there is an innate tendency, rooted in biology, to embrace those children not only as their responsibility but also as their legacy, their posterity. A couple working together for their own biological offspring have a unique impetus to work and sacrifice for their children’s welfare and success. The sexual bond between the couple provides a foundation for a stable partnership, and if additional children come along this further reinforces and extends the partnership.
Throughout history, societies have done this by creating cultural milieu in which, to varying degrees, sex outside of a sanctioned, enduring relationship is discouraged (forbidden, taboo and/or punishable) and comparatively hard to get, while such sanctioned, enduring relationships are the expected and respectable norm. Once again, I’m not saying that the Christian ideals of chastity, monogomy and fidelity have always been the ideal in theory or in practice, but a convergence of sexual ethics across cultures tending in this direction can certainly be observed.”
The preceding passages award biology too much weight. They fail to recognize the primary role played by our essence as spiritual beings formed in the image of God. They fail to adequately recognize our essence as souls possessing free will. The tension between biological determinism and the exercise of free will is overlooked.
The argument becomes truly problematic when it turns to the power of social ostracism:
The health of marriage as a social institution is directly related to this social mechanism of problematizing sex outside of marriage. As noted in Part 5 of the original article marriage as a social institution has always existed to regulate sexual activity between men and women for the good of society and the next generation. In a society that imposes no meaningful obstacles to or consequences for sexual irresponsibility, or that imposes only weak obstacles or consequences, marriage cannot perform this essential function. A culture that cannot clearly affirm the ‘No’ of marriage is a society in which the ‘Yes’ of marriage loses its meaning.”
Resorting to peer pressure to enforce prohibitions moves the argument onto the home field of people who oppose traditional marriage. They will read the preceding passage and nod in agreement as their argument is vindicated: marriage lacks meaning because arbitrary social pressure is arbitrary.
The opposition will argue the arbitrary call for social pressure supports their view that transgressions do not merit punishment. Social pressure, they might argue, is capricious and changes with the times. In their view contemporary social pressure now dictates that no group should exert arbitrary prohibitions. They might even go to the opposite extreme and argue that social pressure should now be exerted against those who fault others for sexual behavior. In other words, they now possess the power to exert social pressure against traditional marriage. Thus, the social pressure advocated by Greydanus can be flipped and used as an opposing argument. He falls into the trap:
It follows that the less socially problematic sex outside of marriage becomes, the less effectively the institution of marriage functions to regulate sexual activity between men and women. Unfortunately, this is precisely what our society has lost over the last several decades.”
Opponents will argue that regulating their sexual activity is itself a social ill. They will argue traditional marriage runs counter to natural instincts found in all biological entities. The idea that society should even consider regulating behavior is an anathema.
In this way, social pressure in the hands of advocates of biological determinism turns against those seeking to tame and civilize biology. The attempt to steward biological impulses can be seen as inherently evil—a project that cuts against the natural impulses of “man as an animal.”
Greydanus continues:
Because marriage as an institution no longer effectively fulfills its social raison d’etre, marriage in our day has become to an extent a social institution without a recognized mission—an institution we retain but no longer understand. Many people today no longer see the point of marriage.”
His conclusion is accurate. Opponents, however, might argue that not only can they no longer see the “point of marriage”—marriage has no point. Matrimony is a social institution and social institutions are a step removed from biological reality. Social institutions are fabrications with no intrinsic reality in contrast to biology, the ultimate reality. The following excerpt continues to illustrate this flaw in the argument:
Because marriage no longer serves any acknowledged social function, what’s left of marriage is largely whatever it means to the individuals wishing to marry. Marriage used to be part of society’s pedagogy—something society imposed on individuals. Now, as far as the larger society is concerned, it’s substantially up to the individuals to decide what it is and what it means.”
The line “something imposed on individuals” captures a fundamental objection that drives the unwanted cultural change we are experiencing. People reject rules imposed by society. They resist allowing the opinions of others to abrogate their free will. Thus we encounter rebellion. Opposition is often a matter of “you say no, I say yes.”
But, when we turn instead to spiritual formation we re introduce the vital concept of free will and individual choice. We cease demonizing individual exercise of free will and celebrate spiritual formation that brings individual will into alignment with divine will.
If we skip this step and instead impose social control and rely on social pressure we are certain to fail. This reality—that we must honor individual free will—reinforces the critical importance of the Church’s primary mission: spiritual formation. If we are faced with the need to honor the exercise of free will we must provide a path for individuals to discover how they conform their will to divine will.
Greydanus starts to take a turn in this direction with a mention of the role a religious subculture can play:
For a great many people, including Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and others, the meaning of marriage may be supplied not by society as a whole but by a religious subculture and its beliefs. In Part 5 I noted that Christianity teaches that marriage is a reflection of the universal human vocation to love and a partnership ordered toward the perfection of the spouses. Many Americans still believe that, or something like it, and this is sufficient to explain a great deal of the ongoing desire for marriage.”
The underlying ongoing desire that motivates continuing baseline interest in marriage is the desire for a deep spiritual bond with another. When spiritual formation bows to the arguments of biological determinism, however, the spiritual component of marriage fades into the background. Thus, as we analyze the adverse changes taking place in the culture, we cannot afford to overlook failure in our fulfillment of our primary function—spiritual formation.
When we fail to offer robust in-depth spiritual formation that nurtures the alignment of individual free will with divine will the prognosis is dim. When we attempt to impose views through social pressure we reap the backlash. We should expect counter attacks when we attempt to impose our beliefs. When we fail to minister to souls rather than bodies we should expect backlash.
It is difficult, if not impossible, to change views regarding marriage if we do not first change views regarding the true nature of the individual as a soul. The individual who is unaware of his true nature will find the arguments for marriage unconvincing. Attempts to share our wisdom will meet with non-comprehension.
The article offers evidence attacks are mounting:
Hostile and punitive acts are increasingly being directed against those who affirm Christian moral teaching or who do not wish to acknowledge same-sex relationships in some way. (For example, photographers, caterers and other professionals who are Christians have been sued or fined for declining to serve same-sex ceremonies. Christian clergy have been harassed and even forbidden to express their views. Others have lost their jobs—and we are still very much in the early stages of all this. For more, cf. Mark Shea.)”
Greydanus lodges an accurate complaint:
Marriage and family life are in decline. On average, more people wait longer to marry, engage in more sex with more partners before marrying, cohabitate before marriage, eschew marriage entirely, or divorce (and remarry, and divorce again) than past generations.”
Marriage and family life are in decline. However, the more fundamental decline, which precipitates marriage and family decline, is the decline in spirituality. The fundamental cause for the decline of marriage and family is the decline in spiritual formation. Success in restoring traditional marriage depends on our ability to address this underlying factor.
