Page 18 (1/1)

CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE

The last Chapter waswith the sexual i - in other words, about Christian e There are two reasons why I do not particularly want to deal with e The first is that the Christian doctrines on this subject are extremely unpopular The second is that I have never been married myself, and, therefore, can speak only at second hand But in spite of that, I feel I can hardly leave the subject out in an account of Christian e is based on Christ&039;s words that a anism-for that is what the words &039;one flesh&039; would be in lish And the Christians believe that when He said this He was not expressing a senti a fact when one says that a lock and its key are one mechanism, or that a violin and a bow are one musical instru us that its two halves, the ether in pairs, not simply on the sexual level, but totally coe is that those who indulge in it are trying to isolate one kind of union (the sexual) fro with it and make up the total union The Christian attitude does notabout sexual pleasure, anyIt et it by itself, any et the pleasures of taste without sing and digesting, by chewing things and spitting theain

As a consequence, Christianity teaches that e is for life There is, of course, a difference here between different Churches: some do not admit divorce at all; soreat pity that Christians should disagree about such a question; but for, an ordinary layree with one another about rees with the outside world Iup a living body, as a kind of surgical operation Some of them think the operation so violent that it cannot be done at all; others adreed that it is s cut off than it is like dissolving a business partnership or even deserting a regiree with is the modern view that it is a simple readjustment of partners, to be er in love with one another, or when either of them falls in love with someone else

Before we consider this et to consider it in relation to another virtue, na of promises Now everyone who has been married in a church has made a public, solemn promise to stick to his (or her) partner till death The duty of keeping that promise has no special connection with sexual morality: it is in the same position as any other pro us, the sexual iht to be treated like all our other ience is controlled by our promises, so should its be If, as I think, it is not like all our other impulses, but is morbidly inflamed, then we should be specially careful not to let it lead us into dishonesty

To this soarded the promise made in church as a mere formality and never intended to keep it Who to deceive when he made it? God? That was really very unwise Hiroom, or the &039;in-laws&039;? That was treacherous Most often, I think, the couple (or one of them) hoped to deceive the public They wanted the respectability that is attached toto pay the price: that is, they were impostors, they cheated If they are still contented cheats, I have nothing to say to theh and hard duty of chastity on people who have not yet wished to be more honest? If they have now come to their senses and want to be honest, their promise, already made, constrains the of justice, not that of chastity If people do not believe in pere, it is perhaps better that they should live together unmarried than that they shouldtogether without uilty (in Christian eyes) of fornication But one fault is notperjury

The idea that `being in love&039; is the only reason for ree as a contract or pro, then the pro, then it should not beis that lovers themselves, while they remain really in love, know this better than those who talk about love As Chesterton pointed out, those who are in love have a natural inclination to bind thes all over the world are full of vows of eternal constancy The Christian law is not forcing upon the passion of love son to that passion&039;s own nature: it is de which their passion of itself impels them to do

And, of course, the promise, made when I am in love and because I a as I live, co true even if I cease to be in love A pros that I can do, about actions: no one can proht as well prory But what, it ether if they are no longer in love? There are several sound, social reasons; to provide a home for their children, to protect the woed her own career by gettingdropped whenever the man is tired of her But there is also another reason of which I ah I find it a little hard to explain

It is hard because so ht to realise that when B is better than C, A ood and bad, not of good, better, and best ,or bad, worse and worst They want to knohether you think patriotis: if you reply that it is, of course, far better than individual selfishness, but that it is inferior to universal charity and should always give way to universal charity when the two conflict, they think you are being evasive They ask what you think of duelling If you reply that it is far better to forgive a ht be better than a lifelong enmity which expresses itself in secret efforts to &039;do the ive theht answer I hope no one willto say

What we call &039;being in love&039; is a glorious state, and, in several ways, good for us It helps to eous, it opens our eyes not only to the beauty of the beloved but to all beauty, and it subordinates (especially at first) our reat conqueror of lust No one in his senses would deny that being in love is far better than either common sensuality or cold self-centredness But, as I said before, &039;theyou can do is to take any one iht to follow at all costs&039; Being in love is a good thing, but it is not the best thing There are s above it You cannot , but it is still a feeling Now no feeling can be relied on to last in its full intensity, or even to last at all Knowledge can last, principles can last, habits can last; but feelings coo And in fact, whatever people say, the state called &039;being in love&039; usually does not last If the old fairy-tale ending &039;They lived happily ever after&039; is taken to mean &039;They felt for the next fifty years exactly as they felt the day before they were married,&039; then it says what probably never was nor ever would be true, and would be highly undesirable if it were Who could bear to live in that excitement for even five years? What would become of your work, your appetite, your sleep, your friendships? But, of course, ceasing to be &039;in love&039; need notto love Love in this second sense-love as distinct fro It is a deep unity, thened by habit; reinforced by (in Christian race which both partners ask, and receive, from God They can have this love for each other even at those moments when they do not like each other; as you love yourself even when you do not like yourself They can retain this love even when each would easily, if they allowed the in love&039; first moved them to promise fidelity: this quieter love enables theine ofin love was the explosion that started it

If you disagree withabout it, he is not ht But before you say that,me by what you really know fro the lives of your friends, and not by ideas you have derived from novels and films This is not so easy to do as people think Our experience is coloured through and through by books and plays and the cines we have really learned froet froht person youin love&039; for ever As a result, when they find they are not, they think this proves they havethat, when they have changed, the glao out of the new love just as it went out of the old one In this depart and do not last The sort of thrill a boy has at the first idea of flying will not go on when he has joined the RAF and is really learning to fly The thrill you feel on first seeing soo to live there Does this mean it would be better not to learn to fly and not to live in the beautiful place? By noaway of the first thrill will be co kind of interest What is more (and I can hardly find words to tell you how important I think this), it is just the people who are ready to submit to the loss of the thrill and settle down to the sober interest, who are then most likely to meet new thrills in some quite different direction The ood pilot will suddenly discover music; the man who has settled down to live in the beauty spot will discover gardening

This is, I think, one little part of what Christwill not really live unless it first dies It is si to keep any thrill: that is the very worst thing you can do Let the thrill go -let it die away-go on through that period of death into the quieter interest and happiness that follow -and you will find you are living in a world of new thrills all the tiular diet and try to prolong theet weaker and weaker, and fewer and fewer, and you will be a bored, disillusioned old man for the rest of your life It is because so few people understand this that you findabout their lost youth, at the very age when new horizons ought to be appearing and new doors opening all round theo on endlessly (and hopelessly) trying to get back the feeling you had when you first went paddling as a set fro in love&039; is so that just happens to one, like measles And because they believe this, soive in when they find themselves attracted by a new acquaintance But I am inclined to think that these irresistible passions are much rarer in real life than in books, at any rate when one is grown up When we meet soht, in one sense, to adely in our own choice whether this love shall, or shall not, turn into e call `being in love&039;? No doubt, if our s, and our bodies full of alcohol, we shall turn any love we feel into that kind of love: just as if you have a rut in your path all the rainwater will run into that rut, and if you wear blue spectacles everything you see will turn blue But that will be our own fault

Before leaving the question of divorce, I should like to distinguish two things which are very often confused The Christian conception of e is one: the other is the quite different question-how far Christians, if they are voters or Meht to try to force their views ofthereat many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one I do not think that At least I know I should be very angry if the Maho wine My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognise that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives There ought to be two distinct kinds of overned by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own ht to be quite sharp, so that a man knohich couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not

So much for the Christian doctrine about the per else, even more unpopular, remains to be dealt with Christian wives proe the man is said to be the `head&039; Two questions obviously arise here (1) Why should there be a head at all - why not equality? (2) Why should it be the man?

(1) The need for soe is perreed, no question of a head need arise; and we may hope that this will be the nore But when there is a real disagreement, what is to happen? Talk it over, of course; but I areement What do they do next? They cannot decide by a majority vote, for in a council of two there can be no s can happen: either they o their oays or else one or other of thee is permanent, one or other partythe family policy You cannot have a permanent association without a constitution

(2) If there must be a head, why the man? Well, firstly, is there any very serious wish that it should be the woman? As I have said, I am not married myself, but as far as I can see, even a woman ants to be the head of her own house does not usually ad on next door She is much more likely to say &039;Poor Mr X! Why he allows that appalling woine&039; I do not think she is even very flattered if anyone mentions the fact of her own &039;headship&039; Thereunnatural about the rule of wives over husbands, because the wives themselves are half ashamed of it and despise the husbands whom they rule But there is also another reason; and here I speak quite frankly as a bachelor, because it is a reason you can see from outside even better than from inside The relations of the fan policy -must depend, in the last resort, upon the ht to be, and usually is,for her own children and husband against the rest of the world Naturally, alhtly, their claims override, for her, all other claims She is the special trustee of their interests The function of the husband is to see that this natural preference of hers is not given its head He has the last word in order to protect other people from the intense family patriotism of the wife If anyone doubts this, lethas bitten the child next door, or if your child has hurt the dog next door, which would you sooner have to deal with, the master of that house or the mistress? Or, if you are a married woman, let me ask you this question Much as you ad is his tendency not to stick up for his rights and yours against the neighbours as vigorously as you would like? A bit of an Appeaser?