Christian Family and Contemporary Society 9780567656964, 9780567663207, 9780567656971

Table of contents :
Cover
Title
Copyright
Contents
Editor’s Preface
Introduction: The “Great Mystery” of Marital Communion: Reimagining Orthodox Christian Foundations
Part 1
1 The Synoptic Gospels and Family: Fundaments to Restore Its Deteriorated Values
Introduction
Family in the narrative of Matthew 19.1–15
Luke about restoring families
Conclusions
2 Pauline Guidelines on Christian Families in the Greco-Roman Social Environment
Inequality between partners and abuse of slaves in Greco- Roman families
Married Christians, Christian slaves and slave owners in First Corinthians and Philemon
Discerning inspired message from social stereotypes in the household code of Ephesians 5.21–6.9
Conclusion
3 The Christian Family according to the Sacred Canons of the Orthodox Church. Orthodox aspects vis-à-vis modern Greek legislation
Marriage
4 Glimpses into the Cappadocian Fourth-Century Family by Gregory the Theologian
5 The Christian Family and its Problems in the Light of St Basil the Great’s Canons—a Pastoral Approach
Prolegomena
Canons of St. Basil the Great—a brief overview
The Christian family and the sins that threaten its unity and moral integrity, explored in light of St. Basil the Great’s canons
Concluding remarks
Part 2
6 The Plan of God for Marriage and the Family. A Roman-Catholic Perspective
The image of the God who is love
Marriage as a real symbol of the event of salvation
The family, a communion of persons
Mission of the family
The family, agent of the evangelization
Marriage and virginity or celibacy
7 Marriage in the Catholic Church and the Problems of Interdenominational Families
Preliminary note
Roman Catholic understanding of marriage
Mixed marriages – values and problems
Mixed marriages and the Roman Catholic canon law
The new proposal of regulation for mixed marriages in Poland
Conclusions
8 Family between Tradition/Traditions and Contemporary Life in Orthodox Spirituality (With Some References to St John Chrysostom)
Preamble
Marriage: path of pain and suffering
Marriage: Path of love and mutual devotion
Different authorities (competences)
The power of tradition
Price of emancipation
Equality in Diversity
Migration
Alienation within the family
Conclusions
9 Catholic and Lutheran Theology of Marriage. Differences and Resemblances
Theology of marriage
The issue of the sacramentality of marriage
The issue of divorce
Conclusions
10 Mixed Marriages in the Antiochian Orthodox Church: An Educational Approach to a Pastoral Challenge
The problematic
Mixed marriages and the unity of the couple
The structure of the established marriage preparation course
The Lebanese demography
The traditional Lebanese family life
The shift in the Lebanese society affecting married life
The ecumenical dimension of mixed marriages
The challenging education on mixed marriages
A pastoral and educational response
Part 3
11 The French Family in All Conditions: From the Best to the Worst?
Introduction
Anthropologic crisis in society and in the family
Some worrying views?
Some hopes or despairs?
Conclusion
12 Families and the Church: From Objects of Pastoral Care to Sources of Spiritual Renewal
Brief sketch of the current discrepancy between church and families and its historical background
Christian family in recent magisterial documents—a missed opportunity?
Retrieving the “lay competence” of families
Towards a new relationship between families and church?
13 Families in Finland between Idealism and Practice
Statistics
Ideologies
Postmodernism
Economical factors
Equality of the sexes
Lutheranism
Concluding words
14 The Theology of the Sacrament of Marriage in the Orthodox Church
Christian family between sociology and theology
Theology of family in biblical context
Christian family and the contemporary challenges
Orthodox pastoral dimensions of today’s Christian family
Final remarks
Part 4
15 Discipline and Love—Biblical Roots of Modern Christian Parenting
Children and parents in the Bible
See your child as a gift from God
Respect the value of the child
Listen!
Discipline
Parenting styles
Love
16 This is Our Family—Protestant Perspective
Introduction
A CEC Document on Family
A Roman Catholic point of view
A Protestant point of view
Biblical highlights: Communion and justice
Communion and justice in our world today
A new reformed Christian world family
Conclusion
17 The Orthodox Christian Family in Present-day Society
Family in the Orthodox biblical and patristic culture
Orthodox topics, challenges, and opinions
Orthodox reflections and propositions
Conclusions
18 New Challenges in the Religious Education of Generation Z (the Youngest Children)
Introduction
Who is Generation Z?
Socio-moral and spiritual challenges of Generation Z in Slovakia
School Religious Education as a means of helping families with Generation Z children
Conclusion
Contributors
Bibliography
Index of Names
Index of Subjects

Citation preview

Ecclesiological Investigations Series Editor Gerard Mannion

Volume 21 Christian Family and Contemporary Society

Other titles in the series Receiving ‘The Nature and Mission of the Church’ Christian Community Now Comparative Ecclesiology: Critical Investigations Church and Religious ‘Other’ Ecumenical Ecclesiology Globalization and the Mission of the Church Friendship: Exploring its Implications for the Church in Postmodernity Agreeable Agreement Being Faithful Communion, Diversity and Salvation Dumitru Staniloae: An Ecumenical Ecclesiology

Christian Family and Contemporary Society Edited by Nicu Dumitraşcu

Bloomsbury T&T Clark An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc LON DON • OX F O R D • N E W YO R K • N E W D E L H I • SY DN EY

Bloomsbury T&T Clark An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc Imprint previously known as T&T Clark 50 Bedford Square London WC1B 3DP UK

1385 Broadway New York NY 10018 USA

www.bloomsbury.com BLOOMSBURY, T&T CLARK and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc First published 2015 Paperback edition first published 2016 © Nicu Dumitraşcu, 2015 Nicu Dumitraşcu has asserted his right under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988, to be identified as Editor of this work. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system, without prior permission in writing from the publishers. No responsibility for loss caused to any individual or organization acting on or refraining from action as a result of the material in this publication can be accepted by Bloomsbury or the author. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN: HB: PB: ePDF: ePUB:

978-0-5676-5696-4 978-0-5676-6911-7 978-0-5676-5697-1 978-0-5676-5740-4

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Christian family and contemporary society / Ed. Nicu Dumitrascu. pages cm. – (Ecclesiological investigations ; Volume:21) Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 978-0-567-65696-4 (hardcover) 1. Families–Religious aspects–Christianity. 2. Families–Religious life. I. Dumitrascu, Nicu, editor. BT707.7.C56 2015 2014030975 Series: Ecclesiological Investigations Typeset by Fakenham Prepress Solutions, Fakenham, Norfolk NR21 8NN Printed and bound in Great Britain

Contents Editor’s Preface Introduction: The “Great Mystery” of Marital Communion: Reimagining Orthodox Christian Foundations John A. McGuckin Part 1 1 2 3

4 5

The Synoptic Gospels and Family: Fundaments to Restore Its Deteriorated Values Daniel Alberto Ayuch

7 8

9

xi 1

3

Pauline Guidelines on Christian Families in the Greco-Roman Social Environment Mato Zovki´c

17

The Christian Family according to the Sacred Canons of the Orthodox Church. Orthodox aspects vis-à-vis modern Greek legislation Elena Giannakopoulou

41

Glimpses into the Cappadocian Fourth-Century Family by Gregory the Theologian Pablo Argárate

55

The Christian Family and its Problems in the Light of St Basil the Great’s Canons—a Pastoral Approach Viorel Sava

65

Part 2 6

vii

79

The Plan of God for Marriage and the Family. A Roman-Catholic Perspective Jose R. Villar

81

Marriage in the Catholic Church and the Problems of Interdenominational Families Przemyslaw Kantyka

93

Family between Tradition/Traditions and Contemporary Life in Orthodox Spirituality (With Some References to St John Chrysostom) Nicu Dumitrașcu

101

Catholic and Lutheran Theology of Marriage. Differences and Resemblances Piotr Kopiec

117

vi Contents

10 Mixed Marriages in the Antiochian Orthodox Church: An Educational Approach to a Pastoral Challenge Bassam A. Nassif

127

Part 3

141

11 The French Family in All Conditions: From the Best to the Worst? Michel Cozic

143

12 Families and the Church: From Objects of Pastoral Care to Sources of Spiritual Renewal Thomas Knieps-Port le Roi

153

13 Families in Finland between Idealism and Practice Gunnar af Hällström

167

14 The Theology of the Sacrament of Marriage in the Orthodox Church Marian Vîlciu

177

Part 4

187

15 Discipline and Love—Biblical Roots of Modern Christian Parenting María Ágústsdóttir

189

16 This is Our Family—Protestant Perspective Margriet Gosker

203

17 The Orthodox Christian Family in Present-day Society Ștefan Florea

213

18 New Challenges in the Religious Education of Generation Z (the Youngest Children) Dana Hanesová

225

Contributors Bibliography Index of Names Index of Subjects

241 249 265 267

Editor’s Preface The contemporary world is the result of a long historical process in which family and religion have always been two of the fundamental institutions, without which human progress would have been very slow and uneven. It can be said that there is a certain two-way interdependence between family and religion, in the sense that both are closely linked to another concrete and necessary reality, society. The latter is where family and religion meet, confront or support one another, respect or avoid one another, collaborate, or simply ignore one another. On the one hand, the family is the seed and the leaven of society, that which gives it consistency and continuity, and society is for the family its material concrete environment for its development or dissolution; and on the other hand, religion is that which adjusts and regulates the spiritual metabolism of society. For that reason the family was over the course of time cherished, praised and nurtured, because it represents the highest form of human coexistence. Nothing is more important and precious in human life than the family. It is by definition a deep community of life and love. The Christian family provides balance, stability and emotional fulfillment in this world, but also hope, and confidence in acquiring the fullness of happiness in the other, eternal, world. However, the family has gone through many trials, just like society itself. Human history records the evolution and involution of the concept of the family. History is not linear. There were times when the family was considered the most robust and enduring institution in society, and also times when its brightness and sacredness were diminished, when it was regarded rather with a certain indulgence and tolerance, rather than with proper and deserved respect. The family ranges from deviant forms in pagan society, characterized by polygamy, immorality, aggressiveness and promiscuity, to those of fidelity and equality of spouses in Christianity, before God and our neighbors. Christianity has restored beauty and dignity to the family, has established clear criteria of cohabitation for the spouses, established the nature of the relationship that should prevail among its members, revealed its purpose, vocation and essential role in order to gain salvation. For Christianity, therefore, the family and marriage not only meet the need for a life in common but involve a kind of communication and communion that exists between God and

viii

Editor’s Preface

man. The relationship between the family and the Church is so close that it is regarded as an icon of the Church, when it is called ecclesia domestica, and also the icon of Christ’s love to man (Eph. 5.21–3). Unfortunately, as Christian teaching and practice have undergone great changes, some positive, others unfortunately negative, with direct consequences for the social life of man, so it has been with the family. Scientific and technological progress, the fact that society has become dynamic, has led to significant changes regarding relationships within the family. The specific communalism of the Christian Church, present in the concrete life of the family, has been gradually replaced by an emphasis on individualism that, despite material comfort, has detracted from the nobility and reciprocal dedication of its spirituality. Erotization of society is an objective reality that cannot be disregarded. It often dictates the direction towards which the younger generation tends. Morality is replaced by questionable ethics, freedom by libertinism, and feeling, responsibility and the moral ideal are replaced by easy, simple things that encourage coarse pleasures, immediate and transient. The sanctity of marriage is no longer a topic of discussion. Other forms of family association have appeared, such as premarital cohabitation, consensual union or partnership, which, at least from the perspective of the Church, lead to a devaluation of the idea of Christian family. The idea of partnership, to refer only to one of them, is foreign for Eastern Christian spirituality, where the family is blessed only if there has been a religious ceremony that involves the assumption of a shared destiny on the part of the spouses, male and female, based on mutual love, support and devotion, or even of a freely accepted sacrifice. Partnership does not necessarily involve love, but only the fulfillment of some obligations, like a contract, which can also be easily dissolved. It has no aura of sacredness, but only of legality, as in any association of partners who share the same ethical and moral values. That is why the organization of an international congress dedicated to the Christian family by the Faculty of Orthodox Theology “Episcop Dr. Vasile Coman,” in the University of Oradea, Romania, from 10–12 October, 2011, was welcomed with enthusiasm and was attended by a large number of theologians, sociologists and historians from all over the country and from abroad. A selection of the essays presented at the congress is published in this volume. The volume brings together an extremely wide range of concerns regarding the family and its role in the social and religious history of humankind, in a wide variety of perspectives, analyses and different comments, from a variety of geographical, confessional and cultural contexts.



Editor’s Preface

ix

The work consists of four sections, distinct but complementary, and begins with a dense introductory study, well articulated and richly informative, that prepares the reader for a foray into the world of the Christian family from its beginnings to the modern world, John McGuckin. As is readily seen, the work benefits from the contributions of many authors, coming from very different academic and religious backgrounds, so giving the reader a wider and deeper perspective both on the family, as a fundamental institution of society, and on the challenges it has faced over time, some of them also present today in new and more refined and complex forms. The first part consists of five studies in which the family is analyzed especially from a biblical and patristic perspective. Daniel Ayuch introduces us to the biblical theology of the family reflected in the three synoptic gospels. Mato Zovkić makes a detailed analysis of the Pauline way of understanding the family and its importance in the context of Greco-Roman society. There follows a patristic analysis: Elena Giannakopoulou is concerned, in detail, with the provisions of the Orthodox canons regarding all the issues that could arise within a marriage. Pablo Argarate describe the relationships within the family of Saint Gregory of Nazianzus, with all its inherent internal struggles, and Viorel Sava offers a pastoral analysis of how the Christian family is reflected in the fourth century, especially in the canons of Saint Basil the Great. The second part brings to the fore more ecumenical and denominational perspectives on family and marriage. Jose Villar shows that the family discovers in God’s plan its own identity and its mission of communicating the divine love to all humankind. Przemyslaw Kantyka highlights the inter-denominational fellowship within mixed families from the Roman Catholic point of view. Nicu Dumitraşcu, on the other hand, introduces us into the mystery and beauty of the modern Christian family in Orthodox spirituality, with direct reference to Saint John Chrysostom. Piotr Kopiec analyzes both the theological similarities and differences between Catholic and Lutheran traditions in the family, on its sacramentality and social stability, while Bassam Nassif explores the pastoral challenges faced by mixed marriages in the Orthodox Church of Antioch. The third part includes studies on the sociological profile of the family in several European Christian traditions, with its obvious pastoral and sacramental aspects. Michel Cozic offers a sociological assessment of the problems faced by the Christian family in modern French society. Thomas Knieps – Port le Roi, in his turn, suggests an interesting theme in which the family should be seen not simply as a beneficiary of the charitable and pastoral work of the Church but rather as a strong pillar on which community and ecclesial communion is based

x

Editor’s Preface

and truly developed. If Gunnar af Hällström constructs a thorough study of the significant differences between the ideal concept of Christian family and the concrete reality of everyday family life, Marian Vîlciu brings a more optimistic vision, detached from the sacramental manner of understanding family and marriage in the Orthodox tradition. The fourth part similarly includes four articles dealing with the position of the family in contemporary society, faced especially with the danger of losing its Christian identity. If María Ágústsdόttir shows in her work how the biblical concepts of discipline and love could be the guiding principles for strengthening and stabilizing relationships in the modern family, Margriet Gosker provides a more accurate image of the family today within the Protestant tradition, with a comparative look at the Catholic tradition. The last two contributions bring to the fore tradition and modernity, not necessarily in a confrontational, but rather in a complementary, relationship. Ştefan Florea describes the family within Orthodox culture as ecclesia domestica, in contrast to modern “consensual forms” of communion of the spouses, while Dana Hanesová presents the mediating role that religious education can play in the dialogue between parents, school and the younger generation in Slovakia, which she calls the Z Generation. It can therefore be seen that this volume contains a wide variety of topics regarding the family, from ancient Christian traditions to new challenges in the pastoral domain, or in that of theological and religious education. A special note is that the work presents the contributions of teachers who come not only from different traditions and cultures but also from very different geographic areas, from many European countries, from East to West and from North to South, and even from an area with a large emotional Christian weight such as Lebanon. Finally, it is worth also mentioning that all the topics are treated in an academic and scientific manner, with accuracy and also simplicity, so that any reader, regardless of denominational Christian affiliation, can easily understand the message of each individual article and also be able to compare the content of the concept of the family in different spiritual traditions. Nicu Dumitrașcu March 2014

Introduction: The “Great Mystery” of Marital Communion: Reimagining Orthodox Christian Foundations J. A. McGuckin

Renewing the springs There is today a growing literature on the subject of marriage as seen from Orthodox Christian perspectives, and this present volume of studies is another sign of the growth of interest in this topic considered as a vital concern.1 Such has not always been the case. Orthodoxy has so valued the monastic state, and has been sustained for so long by monastic leadership in times of crisis and retrenchment2 that, to put it frankly, ascetical preferences in its theological style and message have predominated massively. As a result, the development of a theology of married life has been heavily overshadowed by the extraordinary extension of a spirituality of asceticism. Although the scriptures themselves attribute to the sign of marriage the title of “Great Mystery”3 that encapsulates the relationship of the Risen Christ to his mystical Church (a lofty sacramental encomium that is not afforded to the celibate condition), Orthodox theologians in times past have rarely been able to move their imagination away from marital union considered as an ascetical See, for example: J. Chryssavgis, Love, Sexuality and the Sacrament of Marriage. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Press. 1996; P. Evdokimov, The Sacrament of Love. New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press. 1985; J. Meyendorff, Marriage: An Orthodox Perspective. New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press. 1975; St. Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly vol. 8. 1. 1964 is comprised of papers from a symposium dedicated to the Orthodox approach to marriage. See also: K. Ritzer, Le Mariage dans les Églises Chrétiennes du Ier au XIIière siècles. Paris: Beauchesne. 1970; A. Raes, Le Mariage dans les Églises d’Orient. Chevetogne Monastery of the Holy Cross. 1958; T. Dedon and S. Trostyanskiy (eds), Love, Marriage and Family in the Eastern Orthodox Tradition. New York: Theotokos Press (The Sophia Institute, NY) 2013. 2 After the fifth century, ascetical (celibate) leadership prevailed generally in the Eastern Church’s episcopate; and after the eleventh century the powerful political ascent and expansion of Islam placed all the institutions of the eastern Church into serial decline. In such conditions an ever more monasticizing clerical leadership (especially in its capacities for resistance and endurance) proved of great benefit to the wider church . But celibate leaders did not, generally speaking, encourage any theological reflection on, and precious little attention to, the married state. 3 Eph. 5.32. 1

xii Introduction

“lapse”: a lesser state of seriousness than single celibacy. The ascetical dimension has so overshadowed thinking on marriage that a deeply scriptural resonance has stood in danger of being lost. It is now in urgent need of being reclaimed for the benefit of the larger church: the great majority of whose members have always been, as they are now, working out their salvation in the married condition. This present paper would like to consider the issue of marriage in Orthodox theology from the basis of three foundational examples: Jesus’ own understanding of the wedding celebration as a sign of the Kingdom of God; the apostle Paul’s sketch of a theology of marital communion in the ongoing life of the churches as set out in Ephesians; and finally, what the sacramental texts of the Orthodox wedding service draft out for possible pathways of future development in an Orthodox theology of marriage. It is our thesis here that all these three “pathways” come to the same point and that two of them are commentaries on the other: for Orthodox theology begins with the Word of the Logos (logos tou Logou); and all the scriptural witness, for the Orthodox, is a “type” of the evangelical teaching, just as the Apostolic doctrine and the liturgical evidences are themselves no more (but no less) than commentaries on that evangelical mystery, since all things “run to Christ” their Alpha and Omega. For the Orthodox, the scripture itself becomes “scriptural” and authoritative in the light of the mystery of Christ, never apart from it. Thus, we read all things in the coloration Christ gives to them. So each of these three avenues of approach is to be taken as one stream of witness, organized around the Christ. In so far as they are Orthodox theology at all, they stand as commentary on the single mystery of the Christ, and his renewal of the creation in his glorious Anastasis.4 This is why our consideration can never simply be an historical exposition (views of marriage as they have evolved scripturally and ecclesiastically through the centuries), because, in so far as these things are commentaries, each in their own way, on the Anastasis glory, then they are not historical observation as such, but rather eschatological insight. And eschatology runs against the apparently “logical” flow of historical and sociological analysis. So it is (exactly so) with an Orthodox theology of marriage. In the end we are dealing not with a theory of contractual law here, The resurrectional glory of the Christ: not simply the act of resurrection from the dead, considered as an isolated incident, but the New Testament doctrine that within this glory (doxa) Christ makes present his dominion (basileia) to the world in the realizing of the eschaton within the redeemed believer. This, in Pauline terms, is the Christ Mystery: the core of the ongoing mystical life of the Church.

4

Introduction

xiii

or primarily a set of prescripts that could help stabilize social relations. We are speaking instead of how to perceive the eschatological import of Christ’s message and presence in the mysterious Kairos of his ever-contemporary advent to us. What can this mean in practice? Well, in my opinion, what Christ meant by the “relevance of marriage” was something radically different from most others who had commented on it before him. His own opinions stand out as apocalyptically charged: as challenging to the idea of married love, as much as they are affirmative of it. For most of the Christian centuries the Church adopted, as a parallel to Jesus’ eschatological concepts, the bourgeois Roman legal constructs that made of marriage a contractual agreement disposing of assets (including bodies and persons that perhaps cannot be properly disposed of in this way). Today, when these legal tracks laid so heavily around marriage are more and more clearly diverging from the tracks that Christian philosophy wished to see marriage follow, it will surely be instructive to return to the notion of marriage as that which is given value primarily as a symbol of the eschaton. To see it in this way is more rooted theologically than to approach it in ways that use it in the service of the legal sustenance and consolidation of the present order. Marriage has clearly become something new in our present condition of society. It ought not to be seen as a worrisome thing, however, if Christian ideas of marriage stand out as more and more “radically odd” (the concept of the total gift of the self to another in a kenotic manner) in our present era. Instead of concern that Christian conceptions may be “losing their relevance” it may in fact turn out that we are, more simply, regaining our eschatological matrix. The Christian understanding of love, after all, is far removed from the sentiments one finds in contemporary greeting cards and popular songs, that use this word with such false over-familiarity. It follows that the Church’s understanding on marriage may similarly be “aslant.” A great task still lies ahead of Orthodox theologians in our time: which is not simply the “recovery” of a more fully grounded and balanced theology of the marital state but even the elaboration of a robust Orthodox theology of one of its greatest sacraments. The time is prophetically right for such a major effort: because the very concept and rationale of marriage is being sifted, challenged, even rejected, by contemporary society in ways that have rarely been witnessed in times of peace in any society before us. In such a case a basic ressourciement often proves fruitful. In this case, then, we must return to the teaching of Jesus.

xiv Introduction

Jesus’ teachings on marriage Jesus’ remarks in the New Testament on marriage are mainly tangential in character (analogies, images, fragments). As he was so radical in so many other aspects of his doctrine (the significance of the possession of personal wealth, for example, or allegiance to parental duties, or political obediences5) his reflections on marital relationship equally demonstrate this radicality. For him, nothing in this world is to stand superior to the eschatological allegiance to God’s will, to which he calls his disciples.6 This is why discipleship is a “higher reality” than marriage and may, on occasion, demand the leaving of kin and children7 to follow through its prescripts: a text which in Matthew is described as a radical reversal8 akin to the eschatological order. This does not mean that the disciple must always, and of necessity, renounce familial ties of kinship, of course; rather that he or she must affirm the order of the eschaton in terms of obedience to God’s call to service. I imagine9 that the discourses on “leaving family”, as they originally appeared in the New Testament commands to the apostles, were set in terms of the relatively temporary preaching missions, to which Jesus called his first disciples, around the lake towns of Capernaum. To engage on these itinerant tours they had to, perforce, leave their villages, families, and homes behind. It is from this kernel that the sayings grew into the larger form of renunciatory sayings that the ascetical movement later picked up, transforming them in the process into a major evocation of the call to celibacy as a higher way of life. Be that as it may, however, the Church has constantly taught that the renunciation of kin is not an absolute command in itself, rather a symbolic call to prioritize nothing above God: and this because obedience to God is the primary eschatological sign of the advent of the Kingdom, where his Church on earth seeks to do the will of the Father, “as it is [done] in heaven.”10 On the rare occasion when Jesus was asked to make a specific statement about marriage (one set by the Pharisaic party within the context of the Mosaic Law’s approach to the matter in terms of covenantal contract – and the breaking of the same) the Lord struck out on a radically different tangent. His remarks,

7 8 9

Mt. 6.24; Mt. 8.21–2; Mt. 22.21. Mt. 10. 35–7; 12.49–50; 19.29; 23.9. Mt. 19.29. One notes that the relationship with one’s wife has been omitted from this list. “Thus the last shall be first and the first last.” If one needs to produce a sitz im leben for the renunciatory discourses. 10 Mt. 6.10; Mt. 6.33; Mt. 22.37–40. 5 6

Introduction

xv

therefore, seemed to his initial hearers as highly enigmatic, even objectionable.11 He was, effectively, implying that the approach to marriage through the medium of law was not sustainable. Now this was a radical departure from a major tenet of the Old Testament theology. It is arguable that, here, Jesus was changing the theological significance of marriage considerably from that of “contract” which remains the inspiration (via Roman legislative philosophy) of civil law to this day, into something greater than that: an entrance into a spiritual profundity of communion that actually mirrors the Lord’s own salvific love for his church. This is a move, then, from legality as a fundamentum designed to protect entitlement, towards Kenosis (self emptying out) as an expression of love that abandons entitlement. The idea of contract of course (especially such an important social one as marriage) need not be necessarily opposed to the idea of spiritual communion. Nor do we need to set up polar opposites – as if love and law were irreconcilables. As we have noted, the Old Testament theologians knew well enough that at the root of the idea of contract between God and Israel was the sacred notion of Covenant (berith), which included such foundational notions as the divine election of a people, the nurturing of their social progress, and the fostering of the covenantal contract with Israel through the Temple cult, as well as through the overarching “divine” virtues of Faithfulness and Mercy (Hesed and Emet). But even so, Jesus’ emphatically tangential approach here is deeply significant. This tendency takes reflection on marriage out of the matrix of laws of possession and places it firmly into the dimension of spiritual communion in freedom. It renounces entitlement and elevates mutual submission as the key to love. In this pericope of conflict with the Pharisees, Jesus thus scandalously lifts the proper “setting” of marriage out of the Mosaic law altogether (where they understood it to be commented on by means of the prophet’s authority and status as lawgiver) so as to relocate it in the matrix of “creational ordinance” manifested as consilience to union. This is precisely the reason he gives that divorce “was not so in the beginning”, nor does it manifest the phronema of him who made them male and female ab initio. The text in question reads as follows: And the Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female,” and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put apart.” They said to him, Mt. 19.10–11.

11

xvi Introduction “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” He said to them, “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.”12

The economy of divorce is here envisaged as a concession to “hardness of heart” which is the way of the world, not the way of God’s deep springs of life-energy. Christ here bends the whole question, to refashion marriage (no longer a question of divorce in his hands) as a higher “law of one flesh” (in other words erotic communion) that takes precedence over the Mosaic law of contractual divorce. What this implies, to me, is that marriage is not necessarily to be seen as a prophetic-ethical institution for the refinement of society (the matrix of so much modern Christian thought on the issue), rather as a creation-structure instituted by God as part of the human participation in the divine energy of his gift of life to the world. It is this aspect of participation (methexis) in God’s energy of creation that leads to marriage being founded, in Jesus’ logion, in terms of communion (being joined into oneness). Orthodox theology may deduce from this the premise that it is God who bonds a man and a woman in a mystical union that grows out of the union of flesh. It is not the man and woman who make the marriage between them, therefore (as it is in many aspects of western Christian liturgical reflection), but God who makes the marriage into a living mystery out of the raw material of human affectivity. This is symbolized in the Orthodox Church by the necessity of the blessing of a marriage sacramentally, in church, around the Book of Gospels, so as to make it “Christian,” Christ-ed. Now there are obviously many other different types of definition of what a marriage is that are active and common in our world today: but it seems to me that this fundamental New Testament insight is specific to the point of uniqueness; that it is eschatologically counter-cultural, and a “difficult saying”, as much as a comforting one about communion. Even so, it surely needs to be prioritized as the basis for the essence of an “authentic” Orthodox Christian theology of marriage. This kind of marriage that the Christ is talking about is not co-terminous with what is commonly meant by the societal term “marriage.” It is not the result of a mutual attraction that wishes to set up house together and get a legally authoritative certification from social powers so as to assert mutual rights and obligations following from the “engagement.” The Lord, as far as I can see, has nothing to say about this presumption of marriage. I cannot see evidence Mt. 19.3–8.

12

Introduction

xvii

anywhere that it interested him. This kind of marriage, which is predominantly talked about in society, is like a “Civil Union” in modern parlance. Now a Civil Union is very important to society and to the partners involved, and to the families which result. But it is not what Christ means by marriage in this gospel text and it is important not to flatten out horizontally these vertical eschatological doctrines when exegeting his meanings. We cannot simply presume that Jesus was advocating a socially acceptable doctrine of marriage when he taught because we happen to need a socially constructive theology of marriage in the economic life of the Church and wider society. This is comparable, for example, to the way that we must also avoid making his eschatological sayings on wealth13 subservient to the Church’s need for a socially acceptable “compromise” on financial “orderliness,” which of course it also needs. Rather, we should admit here that Jesus was offering his disciples an eschatological doctrine of truth through the medium of the sign of marriage. This element of radical angle (being “aslant”) to the commonsense views of socially accepted ideas needs to be noted, and honored, even by his very non-eschatological modern Christian disciples. Now this, so far, arises out of what was clearly an “occasional” remark on marriage initiated by the Pharisees. But there is another aspect of Jesus’ teachings that needs to be lifted up to illustrate his approach to the mystery of marriage: and, although this is once more “tangential” in character, it emanates from something that is critical to his own essential body of theology. In short, Jesus on several occasions chose to illustrate the signs of the advent of the Kingdom of God by means of the symbol of the wedding feast. To have chosen to elevate the wedding feast as a symbol (shall we say, sacrament?) of the Kingdom surely gives it a cardinal position in his thought about the fundamental relationship of God to the world. In other words, if the Kingdom of God (basileia tou theou) is the core of Jesus’ understanding of God’s sensed presence in the world, then the close association he makes between this and the sign of wedding celebration raises marriage as a “high symbol”, however tangential that teaching once more appears to be. From this we may conclude that, although Jesus is not teaching, specifically, about marriage considered on its own terms, certain significances can still be legitimately deduced by the way he associates the symbol of the wedding feast so closely to his cardinal message about the way God relates in power to Israel, making his basileia felt as imminently present. Mt. 22.20–2; Mk 10.23–6.

13

xviii Introduction

The sign of the wedding feast appears in an important “Parable of the Kingdom” in Matthew 22.1–14. The Kingdom’s advent is here said to be: “Like a king who gave a marriage feast for his son.” The terms of the story are elaborated in its final version in Matthew to cover several allegorical points related to the death of Jesus and the shameful treatment of the Son’s servants as derived from the Parable of the Vineyard in Isaiah 5 (a parable explicitly used as a reflection on the Passion of the Christ in Mk 12.1–9). But the basic tenor of the tale in Matthew is that a king holds an important wedding feast for his son. His original guests refuse him, so he invites others. The others are drawn in from the hedges and byways: and so the wedding hall is full for the feast, as is appropriate for the sake of the honor of the King. But great dishonor has been done to him: his presumed kin and society of friends have proved faithless. At the end of the tale, when, by redrawing the terms of the feast and continuing with it, the king has re-affirmed his honor, one small thing mars the general happiness: one of the unexpected “flotsam” guests does not bother to wear a marriage garment. The detail mars the festivity – for this again dishonors the occasion of great rejoicing. The ungrateful guest is turned out, just as the original ones were rejected. The tale ends with a cautionary warning: “For many are called, but few are chosen.” Now, as it stands, this parable has clearly been recast in the Church’s latefirst-century preaching, from whatever shape it first inhabited, to be a reflection on the Gentiles’ inheritance of the covenant and the displacement of “those first invited”: in other words it has become a theology of the New Election of Gentiles. But the original tale had all been about the same people, not two different races but rather honorable and dishonorable members of the same society. The salient image at the very heart of the parable surely speaks to the reader of a deeper core: in other words, the paralleling of the news of the advent of the Kingdom of God, with the events attendant on the Wedding Feast of the Son, is the main burden of the analogy before the problem of the theology of election comes later to weigh it down. Two things stand out here: first of all that the analogy describes the things attendant on the approach of the Kingdom; what happens when the news of its arrival is proclaimed. Here Jesus says that, instead of rejoicing that a glorious event is about to transpire, the result has been rejection and dishonor, and radical realignment of “who is in” and “who is out” of the King’s favor. It was from the latter aspect that the Church derived its theology of the election of the Gentiles; but in its original construct it began life, most probably, as Jesus’ wry comment on how his preaching missions had won so few supporters,

Introduction

xix

yet encountered so much opposition from established “theologians of the Kingdom” such as the Pharisees. What does the use of the wedding analogy imply here? The ethics of the celebratory feast require that, if the king (symbol of God) issues an invitation, then to accept it unconditionally is the duty of all those who are the king’s good servants. To refuse the invitation is churlishness of a degree such as to put that person outside the Lord’s graces. So, in a parallel way, to refuse Jesus’ (the Son’s) message of the joy of the Kingdom (its advent substantively compared to the wedding feast) is to put the hearer outside the core of True Israel. Jesus, therefore, seems to be using the parable of the feast in a comparable way to the manner he uses the generic image of feasting to criticize his theological opponents in Matthew 11.16–19,14 and similarly to the way he again refers to the sign of the wedding feast when criticizing his (Pharisaic) opponents in Matthew 9.14.15 In several aspects of the teaching ministry of Jesus, wherein active signs (healings, exorcisms, dramatic gestures and symbols) all played a part equal to the actual words used in the narrative tales, the use of meals as a deep “sign of the prophet”16 stands out prominently. In contrast to the lamentations of times past when Israel “has no longer a prophet” and has “become like those over whom God has never ruled,”17 Jesus’ message that the Kingdom is returning was underlined by him in the device of casting aside fasting and sackcloth, and calling for a feast of reconciliation. In contrast to fasting and lamentation, therefore, which were taken by the Pharisees as the most appropriate spiritual practices to induce repentance and thus prayerfully to call upon God to restore the Kingdom to Israel, Jesus provocatively implies: “Now is the time to begin feasting for the Kingdom is come among us.” This is exactly why the Pharisees (and later the priests) regarded his ministry as blasphemous, or at best prematurely presumptive. But for Jesus the refusal of his opponents to admit the veracity of his own prophetic sense of the “But to what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to their playmates, ‘We piped to you, and you did not dance; we wailed, and you did not mourn.’ For John came neither eating nor drinking, and they say, ‘He has a demon’; the Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, ‘Behold, a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’” 15 Mt. 9.14: “Then the disciples of John came to him, saying, ‘Why do we and the Pharisees fast, but your disciples do not fast?’ 9.15 And Jesus said to them, ‘Can the wedding guests mourn as long as the bridegroom is with them? The days will come, when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast.’ ” (Mk 2.19; Lk. 5.34). 16 Further see J. A. McGuckin, “The Sign of the Prophet: The Significance of Meals in the Doctrine of Jesus.” Scripture Bulletin, 16:(2), (Summer 1986) 35–40. 17 Ps. 74.9 (cf. Prophecy of Azaria 15); Is. 64.1. Note how this latter text is used by Jesus at the core of the midrash of his own baptismal experience. The rending of the heavens which he proclaims at that event is the “fulfilment” of the longing Isaiah expressed for the return of the rule of God. 14

xx Introduction

Kingdom’s advent is tantamount to a refusal of the divine message of the restoration of the covenant: and thus a refusal to enter into that salvific renewal. The symbol of the feast expresses it all in nuce: the joy of a wedding feast is a celebration of the closeness of the host to his kin group. When the King of Israel calls his people to him, it is like the restoration of the covenant in the re-making of Israel. Such a thing would be the long-desired return of God’s rule over Israel. But Jesus argues that, when he has preached the closeness of God and called on Israel to rejoice in the reconciliation that God was offering it, the news met with only half-hearted interest or out-and-out rejection. This sense of disappointment (which we imagine to have been experienced after the first mission to the lakeside towns of Galilee18) has caused Jesus to reflect on the contrast between those who “hear the word of God and obey it,”19 and those who place themselves in opposition to God by refusing to join in his message of rejoicing through reconciliation (metanoia): a critically central doctrine that Jesus had been preaching as the paramount sign that the Kingdom was close at hand. This whole nexus of theology, with Jesus realizing that his own rejection as a teacher brings about the wholesale rejection of his vision of, and teaching about, God, is thus summed up by the Lord in the highly graphic symbol of the feast: namely, that, when God reconciles Israel and returns to harmony with it once more, it shall be like an unexpected invitation back to the joys of the banquet. All of Jesus’ hearers would have surely recognized this as a variation on the Jewish doctrine that the expected Christ would inaugurate the Messianic Banquet of the Elect and the casting out of the wicked. That this particular version of the doctrine caused such offence and disagreement among contemporary Jewish theologians was undoubtedly because Jesus cast all of Israel in the category of the sinner needing reconciliation: and thus the Messianic Banquet was not filled with the righteous (to the chagrin of the wicked such as gentiles, tax collectors, and prostitutes) but rather it included all the disreputables who once were no part of Israel (and perhaps even gentiles!) but were now the beloved guests of a God of reconciliation and forgiveness – and this by virtue of them accepting God’s sovereignty and their own need of cleansing. Their commitment, their submission or trust in this God (pistis, or faith), was their ticket of admission to the Messianic banquet. Those who refused to recognize this, remained uncleansed: and thus no part of God’s Israel. This doctrine of repentance and healing, therefore, is the main burden of Jesus’ preaching of the Kingdom. See: Mt. 11.21. Mt. 7.24–6; Lk. 11.28; Mk

18 19

Introduction

xxi

If the sign of the wedding feast is the primary trope that carries this message, we can conclude that, while marriage in itself is secondary to the purpose here, it nevertheless is indicative; because Jesus has lifted up the joy of the wedding day as expressing the character of covenant renewal and restoration: the basileia tou theou. We are thus moved to deduce that when Jesus distils a message, theologically speaking, from the experience of marriage, it is that of communion of heart; the generosity of joyfulness; the willingness to enter the dance; the common sharing (by feasting) in the bliss of the bridal chamber. Something similar is at play in that third example of a time when Jesus was drawn into a scenario of marriage and used the occasion to illustrate his preaching about the nature of the Kingdom of God. This comes in the Johannine narrative of the Wedding at Cana.20 This story is at the front of the theological structuring of the Fourth Gospel. The evangelist decides, as is well known, to encapsulate the whole Kingdom-preaching in his Gospel into seven great signs (semeia) that Jesus performs. The turning of the water into (180 gallons of) wine is “the first of the signs” that Jesus does. It is the sign that initiates the public ministry. The event is meant, of course, to be contextualized in an occasion of rejoicing: once again it is the wedding “festivities” that are the centre of concern. Here the Virgin intervenes21 when that rejoicing seems to be flawed (a motif apparent we may recall in the Parable of the Wedding Feast) and the wine runs out. Jesus’ response to his mother: “Why trouble me, my hour has not yet come,” signals here that the reader must re-contextualize the sign in the light of the Passion and Glorification of Jesus; for it is to this great “Hour” that the whole Gospel narrative runs.22 This is not a specific historical hour, a Chronos, rather it is the eschatological Kairos of redemption manifested in the world: what the synoptic theologians call the Kingdom of God, and what John sets out as the Anastasis-glory. This is summed up quite brilliantly in the final phrase that interprets the Cana event for us: “He manifested to them his glory (doxa) and his disciples believed in him.”23 So, this is the primary point of the narrative: the massive abundance of God’s mercy (in the sign of excessive wine replacing the water for ablutions) made present to those who had understood the need to rejoice. In this the text parallels the import of the other two instances we are looking at. What emerges as an important sub-text, however, is that here this final phrase about manifesting the glory is a deliberate citation of a key phrase 23 20 21 22

Jn 2.1–11. Jn 2.3. See, for example, Jn 7.30; 8.20; 12.23–7; 13.1; 17.1. Jn 2.11.

xxii Introduction

in the Jewish ritual commemorations of the manifesting of the covenant. Two instances in particular are textually evoked at John 2.11, both of which recall the moment when Moses is in the living presence of God and the Name of the Lord is manifested to Israel. 24 What John connotes by this, therefore, is that the manifestation of the Name by Jesus at Cana is the new making of the covenant, marked by the revelation of divine glory (edeixen hemin ten doxan autou). In short: the Church is born out of the wedding feast at which Jesus is himself the offerer of the new wine. The eucharistic ecclesiological aspects are perfectly apparent in all of this: but for our purposes here it is necessary only to lift out the relevant factor, namely that once again the manifestation of the glory of the Kingdom is mediated through the symbol of the wedding. In a real sense, the renewal of covenant that Jesus brings is depicted as God’s wedding feast with his people. Marriage becomes, yet again, a core covenantal sacrament. In all these examples that we find in the core evangelical tradition, therefore, (the rejection of the laws of divorce as a means of exegeting the symbolism of marriage, the parable of the wedding feast, and the narrative of the wedding at Cana), marriage has been elevated in some sense as a mystical symbol of the proximity of God’s presence that rejoices Israel. It has been validated, we might even say, as a door to the experience of the Kingdom. We ought not, in this light, to underestimate the manner in which a wedding feast, to the poor subsistence farmers of first-century Galilee, was indeed a sign of life and plenty, after penury, hunger, and the ever-near presence of death that stood as the “normal conditions” of life on the edge of ancient society. By bringing in the wedding symbolically as an analogy of the Kingdom, Jesus seems to have lifted out two primary things which marriage seems to have signified for him: first the joy of heart and generosity that makes for a spirit of rejoicing; and secondly the virtue of pistis at the core of what the wedding actually is: that trusting communion and “agreement to becoming family” which is the cause of the joy; from God’s side the reconciliatory re-making of covenant, and, from the believer’s side, the humble trust of willing and joyful acceptance of the merciful honor given as grace. Marriage, for Jesus, is the primary symbol of the Kingdom precisely because it is one of the deepest symbols that humans have of reconciliation and koinonia. It remains important for our contemporary Orthodox marital theology, therefore, to bring those factors of kenosis, covenant, and reconciliation back to the forefront of our sacramental thinking.

Deut. 5.24; Exod. 33.18.

24

Introduction

xxiii

The apostle Paul on the “mega mysterion” of marriage When Jesus spoke of marriage as a creation ordinance, it set the Apostle to reflecting, and he re-interpreted this utterance to the effect that the psychophysical bond of marriage is a profound sacrament of the love Christ has for his church.25 The wife’s relation to the husband is classed as hypotagma in this New Testament text. This term is often over-literally translated as “subjection,” but it is far more than the sad semantic which subjection connotes today, antipathetical, as it would be, to all who would argue for women’s liberation, and all who would see spiritual equality as integral to the nature of a Christian marriage. For in the Apostolic context the word signifies kenosis (emptying out) not abject obedience. The female disciple’s hypotagma is spoken of as the textual parallel to the way the Church at large stands before the Risen Christ; and this is not connoted by “subjection,” in the sense the world attaches to this, but rather a voluntary kenosis of love that exalts and delivers freedom. Hypotagma in the classical Greek sense signifies “order” (taxis) before it gives any connotation of inferiority. Male or female, the Church stands in an “order” under the dominion of Christ. This is the relationship the Apostle suggests the wife ought to mirror in her relation to the husband: since he too, as a brother in Christ, stands before her as an icon of the Christ she is called to love with kenotic freedom. Now several modern critics have complained that here Paul is simply presuming the subjected status of a woman in ancient society and thus ill-serving us by bringing into the Church a mimesis of late Roman social conventions (the subservient and dutiful Matrona of the pagan Roman Household Code, the wife who is docile and will not rock the boat of the authority of the paterfamilias). But this is exactly what Paul is not saying. The term of hypotagma is critically important; for the Apostle is here actually setting out a different kind of “order” to establish the relationship of love between Christian wife and husband. Here a close and careful exegesis matters, for Paul does not simply speak of the wife’s hypotagma (her allegiance to Christ as a Christian being mirrored in her marital Eph. 5.24–32. “As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject (hypotassetai) in all things to their husbands. 25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her, 26 that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. 28 Even so husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no man ever hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, as Christ does the Church, 30 because we are members of his body. 31 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ 32 This mystery is a profound one (mega mysterion), and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the Church.”

25

xxiv Introduction

relation to her husband) but by a parallel literary structure the Apostle balances this with the correct attitude of the husband to her. His “dominion” (kyriotes, andreia – but we note how this term of dominance is implied in this text not spoken overtly by the Apostle) is precisely to be one of “exaltation of the other” to synonymity of communion. In other words he is advocating equality in a hypotagma of mutual reverence of one another “In Christ” who has the overall lordship in the family. This is a theological equalization the Apostle speaks of (again not a social one that the world could give out of its own resources – such as civil gains won irrespective of Christ). This equalization is given by analogy with the husband’s own hypotagma to Christ, the Lord who became a servant for all so as to lift up all the Church into his own liberative glory. This is the new definition of Dominion (kyriotes), and this is the Kenosis of the Lord, whose equalizing of his “subjects” (by admission into communion) makes them into “friends, no longer servants.”26 Such a mutuality of love evoked by the apostle here is no petty matter of who is the “head of the house.” Rather, this is an explanation of marriage that defines it as (or at least challenges it to rise to) a mimesis of the Lord’s own headship of his Church, forged and hammered out in his kenosis of death and exaltation in the resurrection, by which great mystery of salvation he was constituted Lord and Saviour of the Koinonia of the Church. Such a life-praxis is meant to be as deep as death, and as limitless as God’s own compassion. And this is why the apostle calls marriage a “Great Mystery” (mega mysterion) precisely because it lives out in the Church the eschatological mystery of Christ’s Anastasis glory. Too often has this deep and magisterial teaching of the Apostle been dimly rendered as an affirmation of late Roman social order, in the form that wives ought to be “subordinated” to their husbands. All too often this great apostolic meditation on Christ’s eschatological mysticism has been falsified as bourgeois (pagan) ethics. But what the Apostle really says is that husband and wife must apply to each other the kenotic subjection of Christ, and also his lordly dominion. In his subjection (hypotagma, kenosis) the Christ was shown to be Kyrios, Lord and Master. In his Dominion (kyriotes) he was shown to be Doulos: servant of all. This mutuality and synonymity is thus set out by Paul as the pattern for the Christian husband and wife: in their communion they live out the mystery of the Lord’s own redemptive ministry as both Lord and Servant of one another. It is in this way that marriage becomes a “mystery” as a sign or ideal epitome of all the Christian life: that searching out of the “Mind of Christ” (phronema Jn 15.15.

26

Introduction

xxv

Christou) that seeks a kenosis in order to gain the love and communion of the beloved.27 The husband’s authority (which in the ancient world was presumed to be of a very high order and integrally superior to that of a woman) is here laid at the service of the beloved, just as his authority (his right to power under law) is laid at the feet of his Lord, Christ. But all three partners meet equally in kenosis, and find their equality in the laying aside of privilege by love. In a uniquely mystical way the married couple is called to fulfill the supreme command of discipleship: “Love one another as I have loved you.”28 And here this adverbial “as” (the way Christ loved his Church) was fulfilled in the way that the Lord gave himself without counting the cost: it was the way of a martyrdom of love. Accordingly, it is this martyric gift of self which sets the flame to make the continued gift possible and desirable. If this martyrdom gift is met and reciprocated, the marriage relation becomes a Merkavah: a fiery chariot that leads to the kingdom. The mutual love and joy that a Christian partnership lives from within this mystery of Christ’s Passion (for it is a mystery of the Redemption, a sacrifice, a radical risking of the ego) reaches a critical reactive mass, like a nuclear reaction, when it is followed to the point of becoming a culture of selfgiving within a marriage. It is then that the marriage bond starts to function to others as a living icon of the burning love Christ has for his church, and how that love will be the eschatological bonding of all the disciples, in the Kingdom of his joy. This true and mystical definition of marriage described by the Apostle is a peak of Christian perfection. The reality can be attacked and diminished, as it constantly is, by the “hardness of heart” that causes so much other human misery and sin; but marriage is set up by Christ and his Apostle as a “different order” to this. According to Christ’s own vision, love within the mystery of marriage leads a couple to enter deep into the roots of the creation power, and to find there the primal language of communion: the love in which God first made humanity, male and female, in his own image. Marriage is, to that extent, an entrance of the creature into the life of the Holy Trinity itself. In Christ, the marriage mystery is graced as an authentic and whole part of creation which is thereby enabled to encounter the Uncreated. This is undoubtedly why Christ rebuked the Pharisees when they set out to define marriage first and foremost in terms of closely-boundaried contracts of mutual rights and obligations. Over and against this limited perspective (legal prescript which takes its basis on the Phil. 2.5–11. Jn 13.34; 15.12.

27 28

xxvi Introduction

premise of human closure and self-interest, rather than altruism and sacrifice) the Lord places the image of how God himself contracts with his creation: an overwhelmingly excessive and great outpouring of charismatic generosity, a search for a mutuality of love (such is the humility of God!) in which the invitation to love is an invitation to transfigured transcendence.

Crowned with flowers: The witness of Orthodox liturgy Our third and last example of the foundations of the Orthodox theology of marriage is taken from the liturgical service books: always regarded as a prime source of deep Orthodox tradition on any given issue. From the sacramental ritual of Marriage certain things are worth highlighting. The wedding service as celebrated in the eastern Church is an historical amalgam of disparate parts. There are five major elements to it. Beginning in the Narthex of the church the priest blesses rings and passes them to Bride and Groom who exchange them with one another. This is the ritual of Betrothal – once performed separately from marriage, but given such a canonical stature by the church (to break a betrothal was tantamount to a divorce) that it came to be “blessed”, with only a notional distinction from the marriage ceremony. The second aspect of the service is the extent to which its prayers evoke, all the way through, biblical archetypes and examples, and the whole service is surrounded by Old Testament and Gospel readings, and hymns that attempt to synopsize its theological significance. The dominant motif in all of this is that the wedding symbolizes how God made himself the one true Lord (Baal) of Israel. In the covenant God has married Israel to himself. The wedding is a reminder, therefore, of how close God is to his Beloved Bride, the Church. Thirdly, from civil Roman culture of ancient times the Church adopted the rite of the crowning of the bride and groom with flowers. It adapted it to Christian form by having the priest make the sign of the cross three times over the couple with the crowns as they are each, separately, “crowned to the other one”; but the form of the rite derives basically from Roman secular practice. Fourthly, the key Christian element of the Orthodox marriage service is the leading off by the priest of the married couple who, hand in hand, now circle the Gospel book three times, while the choir sings special songs, or troparia: “Dance Isaiah” and “You Martyrs of God” being two of the main ones. The threefold circling of the Book of the Gospels is the equivalent, for the Eastern churches, of the vows of promise made by couples in the wedding service. A

Introduction

xxvii

significant difference is that here in this Orthodox ritual the couple make no spoken vows to one another: they rather make their vows to be together as man and wife before God, in silence. It is the priest who vocally “dedicates” the man and woman to be one “in the sight of God.” This reflects the ancient reality that for the very first ages of Christianity a specific marriage ritual had not yet been composed, and young Christians who had become married by crowning soon came to present themselves before the local bishop to seek his blessing over their union, and receive communion at the Synaxis of their church. So, while, in many western Christian rites, it is said to be the husband and wife who minister to each other the sacrament of marriage, in the eastern Church it is the bishop or priest’s blessing that confers the sacrament of communion, taken together with the sacramental signs of the crowning and procession around the Gospel. Last of all, as a fifth element of the service, from the Synagogue marriage ritual the Church preserved the drinking of wine from a common cup. This symbolizes the common life which has now begun for the married couple, and also (for it has come to replace the more ancient custom of giving the spouses the Eucharistic gifts of consecrated wine and bread together) the concept of sacrifice at the core of a sanctified marriage. Taken together all these elements make up what is experienced by all observers as a splendid and elaborate ritual celebrating an Orthodox Christian marriage. Many Orthodox couples prepare their own “crowns”, which they keep after the event in the home. But as they stand in church, crowned with flowers, and are led around the altar as the choir sings “Dance Isaiah,” the sacrament uses the married couple to demonstrate to all concerned how much the marriage is a celebration of God’s blessing; and how that blessing (conveyed in disparate signs) forms, creates, and sanctifies the human love that stands under it as its foundation, so as to transfigure that human affectivity into a veritable “Sacrament of the Kingdom.” Even in the moment of greatest rejoicing, however, the time when the couple circle the altar table containing the Gospels, so as to make their vows before God, the choir shifts tone, and sings about the record of the Christian martyrs who from all times past have upheld the Church by the purity of their lives. The implication is loud and clear: a successful Christian marriage must embrace martyrdom in its own way. Mutuality of love demands constant forgiveness, submission to one another, correction of each other: especially in so far as the marital relationship becomes also, from this point onwards, a mutual encouragement of the spouses to be sanctified and faithful as Christian disciples. A Christian couple are not merely to be a comfort to one another: they are meant

xxviii Introduction

to be a mutual challenge and inspiration. And this is why at the heart of the Orthodox marriage ceremony there is a chant evoking the “witness” of the martyrs, because the witness of the marital life is a sign of this in its own way. The Kenosis of love is not always a delight: it is sometimes a painful matter. It emerges in many forms that cannot always be foreseen: sickness, separation, misunderstandings and infidelities that need painful remedies, as well as courage and spiritual wit to apply them. Even so, a Christian husband and wife are called to energize each other, to recreate the world around them such that in their home the fundamental attitudes of Christ are exalted, and those of the world are scaled down. They make of their “new marital home” a beautiful corner on this earth, where the Gospel injunctions are fulfilled: to clothe the naked, to instruct the ignorant, to heal the sorrowing, to feed the hungry. Their children, if there be any, are the first in this line of their benefactions. Such a home causes observers to remark that it is a true “house-Church” (ecclesiola) where the “liturgy after the liturgy” continues to be fulfilled. It is in such a workshop of love that the children of a marriage (and how these develop and extend a marriage in new key signatures and ranges of composition!) will also first learn the meaning of the Gospel, from the charity of Christ it engenders all around it. Such is the complex weave of Christian mysteries that the liturgical texts attempt to invoke on the head of the couple being joined in marriage. The overall sense is one of great rejoicing: but also significant moments call to mind the duty of the couple to serve as icons themselves, both to each other and to the wider world, of Christ’s mercy and kenotic generosity.

Concluding remarks The language of marital purposes, functions, contracts, and obligations has been used very heavily in times past among the Church’s (relatively) few theologians who have turned their attention to the mystery of marriage. This continues to be the dominant tonality of secular society’s contemporary reflections on the married state. Such terms are not inapplicable, of course, especially considering the weighty responsibilities to others which the marriage bond itself creates. But, even so, the scriptural and liturgical sources we have looked at demonstrate that they are secondary concerns: deductions from principles, not starting points in and of themselves. Christ speaks of the primary mystery: all else needs to flow from this as extrapolations.

Introduction

xxix

Christian theology of marriage thus begins in a spiritual mystery of communion that is awesome in all its power and significance: causing thauma in its divinely revelatory energy, like the Sinai epiphany recalled by Christ at Cana, or the delight at the return of God’s mercy that is like attending the wedding feast of the Son. Christ has elevated the wedding banquet as a primary symbol of the royal joy of entering communion with God. It follows from this that the spiritual communion of the couple is, in and of itself, a sacrament of the Kingdom. The Apostle elaborates on how this can happen through a mutual hypotagma: that is a kenotic laying down of one’s rights before the other in loving service that mirrors the humble Kenosis the Lord Christ assumed for the sake of his own beloved Bride, the Church. Christ, himself, did not offer any detailed instructions about sexuality in married life but the short phrase he used to define it, namely to become of “One flesh,” once again elevates the concept as a theological sign. In this instance erotic communion is affirmed as a valid symbol of God’s love and a true path to holiness for the married couple. Orthodox Christian reflection on the beauty and holiness of sexual love certainly needs some considerable development in modern times; using, not least, the extensive psychological advances science has made in the last century. In ages past, the overwhelming majority of Orthodox theologians have tended to be monastics. As a result, the Church has had very few theological writers and teachers who have really celebrated the glory of the married condition rhapsodically; and even fewer who have the lived inner experience of it. Approached from the perspective of celibates, and often denigrated as something defective, or at least much less elevated than the celibate ascetical life,29 it has not yet been sung about in a full choral range. Nevertheless, it is significant to remember that marital union is the only sacrament spoken of as the Mega Mysterion of Christ and his Church. Monastic asceticism is not spoken of in this noble way in the scripture. The Orthodox church still waits for great theologians and poets who can sing the glories of the mystery of marriage properly in ages to come. Only in recent generations, and perhaps especially when women disciples across the world can widely command an elevated standard of literary education (a relatively recent state of affairs in terms of world history), will such works of theology, celebrating the sacramentality of erotic communion come to be written in a fitting manner. The path to the Kingdom that is married love is a mystical one for those to whom God has A theme excessively developed by Pope Gregory the Great in the seventh century and popularized by many subsequent ascetical writers.

29

xxx Introduction

appeared within it. Its secrets are hidden from those without. Its profundities are blessed by God with a creation ordinance “to be fruitful and multiply.”30 It is an ascetical path as much as any other, in its own terms and specific styles. And so, as Christ himself indicated, marriage is a great sign of the Kingdom. As the Apostle told it, it is a Great Mystery. As the Orthodox liturgy indicates: it is a way of martyrdom. By means of these teachings, the Orthodox church holds to the eschatological and radical nature of its significance as a faithful recipient of the Tradition of the Lord. These present remarks are merely an initial reflection on that Mega Mysterion whose greater scope escapes their net. The wider theme remains to be more deeply considered and is therefore a very fitting subject for our common scholarly reflections in this volume, and something that is highly apposite in this present time and age.

Gen. 1.27–28.

30

Part One

1

The Synoptic Gospels and Family: Fundaments to Restore Its Deteriorated Values Daniel Alberto Ayuch

Introduction There are very few gospel paragraphs dealing directly with the topic of family or defining it as a social institution. In spite of their reduced number, these texts are decisive for the practice of the Christian faith. The present article deals with gospel narratives, in order to offer a variant to the classical approach of referring mainly to the Epistles in essays about moral and ethical matters in the New Testament. Furthermore, the art of narrative has a peculiar way of transmitting a message to the Christian reader today. It is true that epistolary paraenetic follows the genre of ethical discourse; however, gospel narratives have a very effective way of teaching Christian behavior. They provide neither a systematic code of ethics nor a code of laws. What the gospels do is to teach wisdom of life based on the perspective of the Kingdom by giving clear examples and concrete sayings. Those texts that generally underlie modern theological discourse about family are: 1 Corinthians 5–7; Ephesians 5.21–33; 6.14 and 2 Timothy 2.9–11. Otherwise, there are some references to the Old Testament books, and very rarely, to the gospels. The present article works on two texts that are rarely quoted in studies and documents about family in the New Testament, despite their relevance to this subject. These texts come from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. The chosen Matthean paragraph teaches about marriage, celibacy, and children (Mt. 19.1–15), while the Lucan one forms a diptych of miracles that restore a Gentile and a Jewish family (Lk. 7.1–17). The present study highlights the transforming power of Jesus’ words, when he faces daily life and reveals the fulfillment of God’s promises for salvation of all flesh. Family is one of those human institutions that Jesus revisits and restructures based on the fundaments of love.

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

4

Family in the narrative of Matthew 19.1–15 The first part of Chapter 19 in Matthew deals with the issues of family from a very particular point of view. The way the text approaches this issue has little in common with the modern questions raised about family. Family is not considered as one of the many lifestyle choices such as single life, cohabitation, homosexual marriage and other forms that the post-modern world has reinvented in its ceaseless quest for natural satiety. Far from these concepts, family is understood in this text as the pattern of life desired by God since creation. This is particularly true in Matthew 19.1–15 and in its synoptic parallel of Mark 10.1–16. The coming paragraphs deal with the Matthean text in a synoptic comparison with Mark in order to understand better the purpose of these deeds and sayings of the Lord.

The narrative context of Matthew 19.1–15 The Matthean text to be interpreted in this article comes immediately after the Ecclesiastical Sermon of Chapter 18, and belongs to a long cycle in the gospel that deals with the institution of the Church (Mt. 16.13–20.34). The author chose this moment in the macronarrative to give the Lord’s instructions on how his disciples are expected to behave regarding family, church, and society (Mt. 19–20). The structure of this cycle can be summed up as follows: 16.13–20.34 16.13–17.27 18.1–35 19.1–20.28

The Fourth Cycle: the Institution of Christian Community Peter’s Profession of Faith (narrative form) The Ecclesiastical Sermon (rhetorical form) Exhortations on Christian Life (narrative form)

The completion to this cycle is Jesus’ entrance to Jerusalem as a preparatory step to the Passion narrative. In other words, Jesus makes a last stop before his Passion to instruct his followers about the wisdom of the Basileia to come. In Chapters 19–20, Jesus brings up several issues related to the daily life of his disciples and followers. The first part of these two exemplary chapters is dedicated to family and personal possessions (19.1–29). In the central part Jesus refers several times to the reward waiting for his disciples (19.30–20.1–16), and in the last part (20.17–28) Jesus focuses on the coming passion and the consequences it



The Synoptic Gospels and Family: Fundaments to Restore Its Deteriorated Values 5

will bring to the disciples.1 This article works on the part dealing with family (19.1–15), which can be divided into three main thematic fields: 19.1–29 Family and Possessions 19.1–9 Marriage as a Love Institution2 19.10–12 Voluntary Abstention of Marriage 19.13–15 Jesus and Children 19.16–29 Possessions 19.30–20.16 The Disciples’ Reward 20.17–28 The coming Passion and the consequences for the disciples From this structure one can see that Chapters 19–20 offer an appropriate framework within which to talk about the essential nucleus of the Church, which was described in Matthew 18 as a community based on service, forgiveness, and mercy. The inclusion of the paragraph on the eunuchs (vv. 10–12) to the pericopes on marriage and children is very significant for its interpretation, as will be pointed out below. The three paragraphs together (vv. 1–15) give a general vision of how to behave in life and in attendance of the Kingdom to come.

Marriage based on love (19.1–9) Most Christian writings that deal with this paragraph relate it to the third antithesis of the Sermon on the Mountain in Matthew 5.31–32 and to the law of divorce in Deuteronomy 24.1. As a matter of fact, Jesus develops his vision of marriage when people ask his opinion on divorce. Evidently divorce was a very widespread practice in first-century Judaism, and the schools of Hillel and Shammai used to have different points of view about how to interpret Deuteronomy 24.1. Hillel’s doctrine granted divorce easily, while Shammai’s only in exceptional cases.3 Jesus would have to give his own point of view on this issue. Far from focusing on the issue of divorce, what is really interesting for the present article is the paragraph midpoint in vv. 4–6, in which Jesus quotes twice from the book of Genesis (Gen. 1.27c and 2.24). Jesus insists in v. 4 that “from See a different structure proposal in U. Luz, Matthew 8–20. A Commentary (trans. J. E. Crouch; Hermeneia; 3 vols; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), p. 484. Matthew 19.1–12 forms part of the Orthodox Evangeliarion. It is the Gospel reading for the 11th Saturday after Pentecost. 3 Hillel was a rather liberal Jewish master in Babylon (70 bce to 10 ad), while Shammai was a moderate master in Palestine (50 BCE to 30 AD). See also U. Luz, Matthew, p. 488 note 20; J. Gnilka, El evangelio según san Marcos, (Biblioteca de Estudios Bíblicos 55–6; 2 vols; Salamanca: Ediciones Sígueme, 2001), pp. 76–8. 1

2

6

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

the beginning it was not so”, in order to affirm that divorce was far away from the divine will at the time of creation. The expression “from the beginning” (ἀπ᾽ ἀρχῆς)4 appears twice in the text (19.4 and 8), at the beginning and at the end of his answer, showing the importance of Jesus’ answer, since it goes back directly to the knowledge of the Creator’s will and not merely to the knowledge of the law of Moses, whose interpretation can be contested. Jesus goes back not only to the oldest source but to the claim of knowing the divine will, something that must have provoked the astonishment of his interlocutors.5 Verse 4 begins with the typical question: “Have you not read?” This question has an accent of reproach for their incompetence to interpret Holy Scripture. Both narratives of creation are quoted here to make irrevocable the deduction he develops in v. 6. Joachim Gnilka maintains that both narratives do not support the insolubility of marriage, but explain the attraction between man and woman as part of the divine plan and as His will.6 Also, the Damascus Document from Qumran (4QSD 4.20–1) interprets Genesis 1.27 as a fundament to plead for monogamy: The builders of the wall (the Hasmonean kings) […] are caught twice in fornication: by taking two wives in their lives, even though the principle of creation is “male and female he created them” (Gen. 1.27).7

One can see here the same argument given by Jesus when he quotes Genesis 1.27 to plead for monogamy and not only to talk about the androgynous origin of the primal human being. In this way, he sustains that the union of man and woman is necessary and according to the divine will since the times in paradise. The verb συζεύγνυμι, what God “joined together”, appears here in v. 6 and parallel Mark 10.9. This verb means to join by the yoke (ζυγός), which shows that this union represents for the couple a commitment to join efforts in order to form a family and bring up children. It also points out the unity of the two members joined by marriage.8 Jesus proposes a new reading of the Law in which Regarding the use of this expression to refer either to creation or to the beginning of salvation history, see Isa. 63.16; Josh. 24.3; Ps. 74.2; Hab. 1.12; Mic. 5.2. 5 See U. Luz’s point of view on this issue in: Matthew, p. 490. 6 J. Gnilka, Das Matthäusevangelium (Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament I; 2 vols.; repr., Freiburg: Herder, Sonderausgabe, 1988), p. 152. 7 Quoted from F. Garcia Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated. The Qumran Texts in English (Leiden: Brill, 1996), p 36. In the same line of thinking, and defending monogamy, Judah ben Bathyra – a rabbi from the second century ad – said: “If it had been fitting for Adam to have been given ten wives, God would have given them to him, yet He gave him but one. So I, too, will be satisfied with one wife,” quotation from: K. E. Kvam, L. S. Schearing, and V. H. Ziegler, Eve and Adam: Jewish, Christian, and Muslim readings on Genesis and Gender (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1999), p. 205. 8 J. Gnilka, Matthäusevangelium, p. 153. 4



The Synoptic Gospels and Family: Fundaments to Restore Its Deteriorated Values 7

he sees that Moses did not command divorce but only tolerated it because of the predominant hardness of heart among believers. This critical attitude towards the Law existed already in the famous verse from Ezekiel 20.25.9 However, Jesus consequently develops throughout the Gospel his attitude towards the Law to propose a new way of interpreting the word of God as it is revealed in the Law. This is a particular hermeneutical key that confirms the divine origin of marriage. In this sense, marriage is the complementing of man and woman to accompany each other during their lives and to respect each other unconditionally. This will be an essential stone for the constitution of a healthy Christian family.

Voluntary abstinence (Mt. 19.10–12) Further on we have the text about the eunuchs10 in a paragraph of three examples in which the third one is decisive and where the term eunuch, which in principle represents a sad situation of infertility because of human cruelty, gets a positive and mysterious meaning, almost unexplained and left for the discernment of those who can understand. Undoubtedly, this paragraph not only gives a solid answer to those men of v. 10, who are not satisfied with having only one wife forever and defend their right to marry and divorce as many times as they desire, but it also recalls certain well-known examples of people within the community, who opted for not marrying because of the Basileia (probably Paul would be among the most famous ones). Throughout the history of interpretation of this text in antiquity one can frequently read a refusal against any intent to opt for an exaggerated asceticism because of this saying of the Lord. The trend is to calm down any effusive passion for restraining sexual life.11 In the early church Christians understood Matthew 19.12 as a recommendation rather than as a requirement to opt for virginity.12 It is very likely that the main topic in this paragraph has still to do with marriage. If so, the text affirms that, for those who can and will, there is still the option for celibacy as a temporary or permanent way of life and as a sign of submission to the Kingdom’s work, even if this concept might seem “And for this reason I gave them laws that were not good and judgments by which they could never live” (NJB). In agreement with 1 Cor. 7.32–40. 11 See U. Luz’s history of interpretation for this paragraph in Matthew, pp. 496–9. 12 The allegorical interpretations of the term eunuch prevail in Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Gregory Nazianzen. A eunuch by nature would be a good man by nature, a eunuch for the people would be a man guided by good masters outside Christianity. Finally, a eunuch for the Kingdom would be the one who studies the Word of God. See U. Luz, Matthew, p. 498. 9

10

8

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

strange to the social standards of that time.13 Jesus, the Baptist, and Paul opted for this way of life. Voluntary, not compulsory, celibacy seems to be the proposal here. This is one option that Matthew presents graphically in this paragraph on family in order for it to be considered as a serious and plausible way of life.

Jesus and children (vv. 13–15) The last paragraph in this section on family presents the scene of Jesus with children. The expression that people were bringing their children to him, “for him to touch them” in Mark 10.13 has above all a therapeutic accent in the Marcan context (Mark 10.13 ἵνα αὐτῶν ἅψηται). The Matthean version reflects a wellstructured church and this is why the narrative in Matthew 19.13–15 transforms the scene inspired from Mark into a solemn religious ritual. Jesus distinguishes himself among philosophy and religion masters by the importance he gives to receiving and accepting children. Evidently, his disciples were taken by surprise at this particular attitude of Jesus.14 Ulrich Luz affirms that “there are no historyof-religions analogies.”15 The paragraph on chastity is an excellent preamble to the presentation of children, since they are the best example of chastity. Or, was there a certain irony in bringing them to him? Does the public bring children to express their nonconformity with Jesus’ teaching about marriage and celibacy by telling him that the only ones able to follow his doctrine would be kids? Blessings were usually given by fathers at home, by priests at the temple, and by masters at the synagogues. It was an expression of communion and personal solidarity and it shared with the blessed person the supreme desire of salvation and participation in the gifts promised by God to his people. The imperative “do not stop them” (μὴ κωλύετε αὐτα) comes in the present tense to emphasize a continuous and repetitive action. If one relates this sentence to the question of the Ethiopian man in Acts 8.36 “is there anything to prevent my being baptized?” (τί κωλύει με βαπτισθῆναι;) it makes sense to deduce that Jesus is in favor of infant baptism. Of course, this is not the first meaning of the text, which takes the exemplary sense of children as those who are helpless and receive the gifts of the Kingdom freely and without any merit. The text speaks for the little ones in the community. Jesus proposes a reconsideration of the See, for instance, G. Hinson, The Triumphant Church (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1995), p. 151, who mentions laws against celibates and childless married couples in the Roman Empire. 14 Viviano, B., “Evangelio según Mateo,” R. Brown, J. Fitzmyer, and R. Murphy (eds), Nuevo Comentario Bíblico San Jerónimo (trans. J. Pérez Escobar; 2 vols; Estella: Verbo Divino, 2004), pp. 66–132 (115). 15 Matthew, p. 506. 13



The Synoptic Gospels and Family: Fundaments to Restore Its Deteriorated Values 9

connection between act and reward. The demonstrative adjective “such as these” (τοιούτων) in v. 14 indicates that Jesus not only talks about the children in the literal sense but also about all those who are little, who are scorned for not being important. Saint Jerome says that Jesus sets as a pattern to follow the innocence and simplicity of children.16 This pericope is in direct relation with Matthew 18.1–4, where Jesus sets a child as a pattern of discipleship,17 and with the children who exclaim Hosanna at Jesus’ entrance to Jerusalem (Mt. 21.15–16). Therefore, children are a concrete example for the disciples about how their attitude towards the community should be. Of course, the text does not talk about the negative sense of being a child or childish as is the case with the word wld in Arabic. The semantic connotation here has to do with purity, openness, capacity to forgive, humility, simplicity, trustfulness, joy of life, sense of justice, detachment, and disinterest in material things. In two words: true love.18 Regarding the issue of family, this text confirms the positive attitude of Jesus towards children and the necessity of making them partakers of the Kingdom’s gifts at an early age. Although this was one of the peculiar features of Jesus’ preaching, the history of interpretation, according to Ulrich Luz, shows that the paraenetic interpretation only occasionally includes a call for training children in the church.19 Saint Basil wrote one of these exceptions in his Regulae brevius (no 292=260–1). Luz also mentions the Incomplete Commentary on Matthew, which urges parents to pray for their children and to ask the priests to bless them frequently (Opus imperfectum 22=805). On the other hand, Saint John Chrysostom sees in his homily 63 to Matthew that this text is a paraenesis (παραίνεσις) to the practice of laying of hands on children to preserve them from all evil.20 Origen says that the Lord exhorts his educated disciples to become themselves children when they talk to children in order to gain them; in the way Jesus, being God, made himself a child (δοῦλος, servant in the sense of manifesting Himself as the Son) according to Philippians 2.7. The term used by Matthew to name a child here is παιδίον, a very important term in the fields of education. It is the diminutive of παῖς and refers to a very young child, younger than seven years as Hippocrates says. Tomás de Aquino, Catena Aurea Exposición de los cuatro Evangelios (4 vols; Buenos Aires: Cursos de Cultura Católica, 1946), p. 136. This pericope is read on the Monday of the ninth week of Matthew according to the Evangeliarion of the Orthodox Church. 18 I must thank here my three children who taught me all these semantic connotations to the word child in daily life. 19 Matthew, p. 506. 20 Tomás de Aquino, Catena, 136. 16

17

10

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

The Matthean text gives a new vision of family based on the principle of love and care for the other. The patriarchal family, which was centered on the earthly profits and interests of the paterfamilias, is now centered on the coming of the Kingdom. Therefore, all values need to be reconsidered in order to open the doors of every household to the grace of eternal life.

Luke about restoring families The second part of this article works on two passages from the Gospel according to Luke, which show the way Jesus brings salvation to two different households: one living according to the Greek-Roman culture and another one living according to Judaism. These two stories appear in Luke 7.1–17, that is, immediately after the Sermon on the Plain. Two families exposed to the dangers of disease and death receive the visitation of Jesus Christ, who gives them a turning point in their lives. This is why the people will exclaim with faith, “A great prophet has arisen among us” and, “God has visited his people”, giving to the reader the hermeneutical key to the whole cycle (Lk. 7.16b).

God’s salvation enters a Gentile home (7.1–10) The pericope on the healing of the centurion’s servant consists of an introduction that indicates Jesus’ entrance into Capernaum and highlights the critical situation that will trigger the action (vv. 1–3). From then on the sending of the two delegations is told according to a parallel structure: the first one consists of a group of Jewish elders (vv. 4–6a) and the second one is a group of friends (vv. 6b–9). The story closes with the healing verification in v. 10. There is no doubt that the centurion represents the pagan world. His social status as an officer in Galilee suggests a different origin than Judaism. Furthermore, the elders’ witness in his favor introduces him as a benefactor of the Jewish people (v. 5). Also his attitude of considering his place unworthy to receive a master of the Jewish faith witnesses his Gentile origins (vv. 6–7). The reader can deduce that the centurion was among the connoisseurs of Judaism or among the God-fearing ones, a term well known to Luke as his use of it in Acts 10.22 proves. This passage focuses on the role of Jesus’ visit to the house of a Gentile. In 7.6 we read that Jesus was heading to his “house” (οἰκία) and in 7.10 we read that the servant was found healed when those who have been sent returned to



The Synoptic Gospels and Family: Fundaments to Restore Its Deteriorated Values 11

the “house” (οἶκος). This term in its two interchangeable Greek forms indicates the place of Jesus’ action and points out the restoration of order in the entire household of the centurion. The imbalance, which is indicated at the beginning with the homeowner’s suffering because of his sick servant (v. 2), is later on compensated by the visitation of Jesus, who changed the course of daily life in this family thanks to the centurion’s profession of faith. Moreover, the author gives a special dramatic emphasis to the story with his comments in v. 2, where we read that the centurion valued his servant highly (ἔντιμος) and that the servant was about to die (ἤμελλεν τελευτᾶν).21 In Luke, the term home (οἶκος or οἰκία) has different meanings. One of the most common is family in the sense of relatives living under the same roof (Lk. 9.4; 10.5 and 7; 12.52), but also in the sense of a large family that may include ancestors, or even a whole tribe, a clan or a nation (Lk. 1.27 and 69; 2.4; Acts 2.36; 7.42). Only the context can define its most appropriate meaning.22 In the narrative context of our text it is clear that home means household including the house, its inhabitants and their possessions. Jesus blesses this institution and provides it with the basic elements that it needs for it to keep going on. He visits them and gives them faith and salvation; he delivers them from evil, whose most graphic expression is the threat of death. The image of the centurion in the text is certainly positive; although I would not go as far as F. Bovon does, suggesting that the centurion is an example of neighbor and foreigner love.23 Even if his faith is greater than the Jews’ and his works witness in his favor, the Centurion is still far from playing the role model of a true believer. Furthermore, I think that several modern commentaries lose the thread of the plot when they insist on presenting the centurion as the story’s central figure.24 The only true central figure in this pericope is Jesus who was able to beat the threat of death. Not only the macro-narrative confirms the central role

For different interpretations on these comments see G. Theißen, Erlösungsbilder (Gütersloh: Kaiser, Gütersloher Verlag, 2002), pp. 77–81. 22 Weigandt, P., “οἶκος,” Balz, H. and G. Schneider (eds), Diccionario Exegético del Nuevo Testamento (trans. C. Ruiz-Garrido; 2 vols; Salamanca: Sígueme, 2nd edn, 1998) pp. 500–8 (504). 23 F. Bovon, L’Évangile selon Saint Luc (Commentaire du Nouveau Testament, III; 4 vols; Genève: Labor et Fides, 2009), p. 341. 24 F. Bovon, Luc, p. 338 affirms that “le rôle principal est celui du centurion” and on page 343 he calls the centurion the “personnage principal,” giving to Jesus the single role of a “spectateur.” This interpretive mistake leads him to be aroused by his own paradox on page 344. On the same line, C. Langner, Evangelio de Lucas. Hechos de los Apóstoles (Biblioteca Bíblica Básica 16; Estella: Verbo Divino, 2008), p. 119 says “podemos deducir que la narración no tematiza a Jesús sino al centurión.” See also K. Löning, Das Geschichtswerk des Lukas (Urban Taschenbücher 455–6; 2 vols; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1997) p. 216.

21

12

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

of Jesus, but also the application of Greimas’ actantial model assures that Jesus can only take the subject actant role, i.e. the one who wants to accomplish the central action of the story. Besides, it is Jesus who triggered the action with his entry to Capernaum and the centurion only reacted to his arrival and to Jesus’ decision to go and visit him. Jesus’ astonishment has a prophetic character and challenges those men of little faith. Mutatis mutandis, Jesus’ praise of the centurion’s faith has the same pragmatic function as his rebuke of Thomas in John 20.29. Both texts celebrate the faith of those who believe in him without having had any personal contact with him during his lifetime. Therefore, it should be noted that “the multitude that followed him” is the indirect object of “he said” rather than the indirect object of “he turned around,”25 which means that his words were addressed to those who accompanied him permanently and yet have not shown such faith. In several instances the text makes use of wisdom irony, which has the pragmatic function of leading the reader away from a possible misunderstanding. One of these elements of irony is the diligent intercession of the Jewish elders for the sake of a foreigner. If Jewish leaders had been so open to offering salvation to the nations as these elders from Capernaum were, Jesus would neither have had the need to discuss with them table conviviality with sinners (Lk. 5.29–31), nor the religious meaning of clean and unclean (Lk. 5.12–14; 11.41) nor the entrance restrictions to the Temple (Lk. 19.45–6). Luke tells here the ideal role that the chosen people should play as an advocate for the nations. Judaism should be the door for the nations to enter into the worship of the true and one God. However, the macro-narrative shows how they closed every possibility for the nations to be in communion with God (cf. Lk. 11.45–6; 13.34–5; 15.1–2; 18.9–14; 20.9–19). This is Jesus’ struggle and this is one of the key reasons why Jesus suffered on the Cross (Lk. 11.53; 13.25–9; 22.1–6). A second relevant ironic element is the concept of love that the elders appear to have. Although the Gentile centurion is part of the oppressive force in Galilee, these elders have no hesitation in describing the construction of a synagogue as an act of love (v. 5). The reader cannot fail to perceive the difference between this way of understanding love and what Jesus meant by love in the Sermon on the Plain, just a chapter above (6.27–35). The text refers to this subject on the go and shows the big difference between the two approaches challenging the reader to make his/her own choice. J. Fitzmyer, Lucas, p. 638.

25



The Synoptic Gospels and Family: Fundaments to Restore Its Deteriorated Values 13

The third ironic element is perceived in the redefinition of the terms “slavery” and “freedom.” On the one hand, the centurion, who represents the government’s power, appears in a submissive attitude towards the chains of sin. He is not free even to receive at home those whom he wants to. On the other hand, Jesus, a member of the oppressed and poor people, is capable of providing true freedom and of giving orders as the highest ranks in the army do. In a synoptic comparison with Matthew 8.5–13 (see also John 4.46–53), the Lucan version of this story is characterized by the use of the word slave to designate the suffering person (Gr. δοῦλος) instead of the terms servant (Mt. 8.5–13; Gr. παῖς) or son (Jn 4.46–53; Gr. υἱὸς). In the context of Luke’s account this term defines the human condition prior to Jesus’ visitation. Thus, the work of Jesus releases men from their true slavery, i.e. death and evil. An interesting detail: when the centurion sends his second message to Jesus he does not dare to refer to the young man with the hard term “slave.” He rather calls him “boy” or “servant” (v. 7; Gr. παῖς), as if he were ashamed to say to God’s messenger that he had a slave at home. Jesus Christ remains distant. He neither gets to meet the centurion nor to be in front of the slave. However, he heals the boy. This narrative device reflects the situation of the gentile communities, who did not know Jesus in person, but believed in him and experienced his grace through the apostolic kerygma.

God’s compassion to the needy (7.11–17) This passage has a uniform structure. In the opening Luke describes the arrival of the thaumaturgist to town and his meeting with the miracle receiver (vv. 11–13). Thereafter follows the transformative action and the verification of the resurrection in vv. 14–16. Finally, the news spread throughout the region (v. 17). This resurrection miracle story is not the only one in the Lucan Diptych, but it is the first. Among them we have the scene of Jairus’ daughter in 8.40–56, the miracle of Peter to Dorcas at Joppa (Acts 9.36–43) and Paul’s resurrection of the young man, Eutychus, in Acts 20.7–12. The redaction criticism considers the scene at Nain as part of Luke’s special source (SL) and it is a minor interpolation in the big Marcan section that is followed by Luke in the first part of his gospel (Lk. 4.1–9.50). The scene at Nain is clearly interlinked with the former one through the adverbial expression “soon afterward” (ἐν τῷ ἑξῆς) which occurs only in the Lucan Diptych and ensures a particular relationship between the two miracles. Moreover, the narrative imbalance is much more drastic than in the previous

14

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

pericope. In verse 12 a widow suffers the loss of her only child. A woman, who once was wife and mother, is now left alone in a world that has little to offer for women in her situation. In his journey through Galilee to proclaim the coming of the Kingdom, Jesus meets a family dominated by evil and affliction. It is Jesus who, here, moved by compassion, takes the initiative and decides to intervene. The verb to have compassion (σπλαγχνίζομαι) occurs in Luke only in three passages that belong to his special source (SL). This verb refers to Jesus’ attitude towards the widow (v. 13), the Good Samaritan’s attitude towards the half-dead man lying on the road (10.33) and the father’s attitude towards his returned son (15.20). This term indicates undoubtedly readiness to be benevolent and kind, wanting to help those who suffer a bad condition. This is the way it is also used by Matthew and Mark. Together with Luke, they are the only three authors to use this verb in the New Testament (Mt. 9.36, 14.14, 15.32, 18.27, 20.34, Mk 1. 41, 6.34, 8.2, 9.22). Jesus’ intervention is interpreted by the crowd as the visitation of God to his people (v. 16). This observation echoes other paragraphs in Luke and Acts (see Lk. 1.68, 1.78 and Acts 15.14) and is always used as a technical term to refer to God’s salvific deeds. The witness of the people in verse 16b reflects a particular reading of the Old Testament. The narrator’s note “and he gave him to his mother” (v. 15) recalls 1 Kings 17.23, where Elijah raises up the widow’s son of Zarephath, and 2 Kings 4.36f, where Elisha gives the Shunammite widow her son back. In fact, all the scenes of Elijah in Zarephath and Elisha in Shunem (1 Kgs 17.17–24; 2 Kgs 4.17–37) are present throughout the pericope. Jesus’ command, “young man, I say to you, arise”, in v. 14, comes in the form of an imperative verb (ἐγέρθητι) and not as a supplication to God, such as the prophets Elijah and Elisha made several times before the miracle took place (1 Kgs 17.20–2; 2 Kgs 4.33–5). Jesus acts with greater authority. The narrator introduces him as the true architect of the miracle, not as an intermediary or an intercessor. Once the family has been restored and delivered from evil, they become living witnesses of the presence of Jesus Christ in the area. Their impact will be present later on in Jesus’ response to the disciples of the Baptist: “the dead are raised up” (Lk. 7.22). This text is based on the literary motif of the widow as the one who represents the oppressed believers. The widow is here the people of God, the poor of God, who suffer the injustices of life, but always receive the redeeming grace of the Lord. This motif is strongly present in Luke-Acts (Lk. 2.37; 18.3–5; 21.2–3; Acts 6.1; 9.39) and has its roots in different Old Testament themes: Israel as the wife



The Synoptic Gospels and Family: Fundaments to Restore Its Deteriorated Values 15

of the Lord (Hos. 2.4–6; Jer. 2.1–2); the unjust treatment of widows in the court (Isa. 1.23; Ezek. 22.25; Lk. 20.47); the self-definition of Israel as the suffering and poor people (Isa. 41.17; Ps. 37.11; 69.33); the definition of God as the upholder of widows (Ps. 146.9; Deut. 10.18); and the exemplary narratives of Elijah and Elisha (1 Kgs 17.20–22; 2 Kgs 4.33–35; Lk. 4.26). In the Nain passage, the widow and the son represent the pain of the human being and, as such, they are more than ever the co-protagonists of an “edifying story.”26 Alternatively, the crowd’s reaction expresses the expectations for salvation of the Lucan community that celebrates the reading of this passage. Tarazi sees in this closing exclamation a fulfillment of Zechariah’s prophecy in Luke 1.68 and 78.27 The direct contact with the widow’s son in comparison to the distance kept with the centurion’s servant confirms the “Gentile – Jew” semantic dimension of this diptych. The Evangelist expresses in the form of a narrative the contrast between both religious backgrounds: the Jewish and the non-Jewish. Jesus’ movement towards Nain is “he drew near to the gate of the city” (v. 12; ἤγγισεν), while his movement towards the centurion’s place is “he was not far from the house” (v. 6; μακρὰν). The alternation between the positive verb “to draw near” and the negative verb “not to be far” shows that Jesus comes to visit both houses; however, he respects the promises given to the House of Israel.

Conclusions The Matthean pericope presents a free family living in love: a vindicated woman, a man who respects his wife and children, who not only are not ignored but are also held up as examples. Jesus redefines the sense of family in the light of his Kingdom. The believers must decide whether or not they accept this vision freely and by their own will. This option is not spared from carrying a yoke. This is why Matthew puts this pericope close to the time of Jesus’ Passion, in order to affirm that this life choice is not easy. To live according to the Kingdom is not easy at all, even for those who have chosen not to marry for the sake of the Kingdom, because society will see them as simple eunuchs, a pejorative term in antiquity, both for Judaism and for the Greek-Roman culture. P. N. Tarazi, The Old Testament: An Introduction (3 vols; Crestwood: Saint Vladimir’s Seminary Press, rev. edn 2003), pp. 22–5. P. N. Tarazi, The New Testament: An Introduction (4 vols; Crestwood: Saint Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001), p. 64.

26

27

16

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

On the other hand, the Lucan text illustrates and exemplifies the salvation for both, the Gentiles, through the figure of the centurion’s servant, and the Jews, through the resurrection of the widow’s son. The essence of the Christian message has always been to open the doors of repentance and eternal life to every human being. Neither a social stratum nor a human condition is left behind. Jesus calls everyone in different ways according to their religious and cultural background. Had the gospel not passed by the centurion’s and the widow’s households, the culture of weakness and death would have reigned over them. Their younger generation would have fallen to the power of death, and suffering and wailing would have possessed their hearts. Had Jesus not visited them, life would have been a synonym of injustice, and love would have meant only to give what is left or to give by convenience. The gospel grants a new understanding to reality that breaks the rules of worldly wisdom and leads to the wisdom of the Kingdom, where the principles of social relations are redefined with the eyes of faith.

2

Pauline Guidelines on Christian Familiesin the Greco-Roman Social Environment Mato Zovkić

In preparing this presentation I have found the 1997 monograph Families in the New Testament World. Households and House Churches, by Carolyn Osiek and David L. Balch to be very helpful. Carolyn Osiek is a Catholic nun and Professor of the New Testament at the Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, while David Balch is a Protestant scholar and Professor of the New Testament at Brite Divinity School in Fort Worth, Texas. In recent decades Christian exegetes of different denominations have focused attention on the social environment of New Testament writings and communities as an approach to inspired text. I am grateful to Professor Nicu Dumitraşcu for inviting me to participate in this ecumenical conference on family, and I am delighted to be able to share with this distinguished audience some of the fruits of my research on Pauline guidelines on Christian families in the Greco-Roman social environment of the first century ad.

Inequality between partners and abuse of slaves in GrecoRoman families Paul of Tarsus grew up as a diaspora Jew and after his encounter with the risen Christ on the road to Damascus he felt summoned to preach the gospel to the Greco-Roman urban population (hina euangelizōmai auton en tois ethnēsin – Gal. 1.16; Rom. 1.15).1 Without neglecting his Jewish family and theological education, he saw the evangelization of the Gentiles as a personal calling by God See Wayne A. Meeks: The First Urban Christians, Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 1983, pp. 9–73. Beverly Roberts Gaventa: “‘To Preach the Gospel’: Romans 1,15 and the Purpose of Romans,” in Udo Schnelle (ed.): The Letter to the Romans, Peeters, Leuven, 2009, pp. 179–95.

1

18

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

and as a way to achieve internal happiness despite enormous difficulties: “If I preach the gospel, this is no reason for me to boast, for an obligation (anankē) has been imposed on me, and woe to me if I do not preach it” (1 Cor. 9.16).2 He expected that his letters would be read at liturgical gatherings of baptized men and women who were living in a particular locality (1 Thess. 5.27; 1 Cor. 5.4–5; 16.19–20; Col. 4.16). He reminds converted Gentiles that they have been baptized into (eis) Christ and so they have clothed themselves with Christ. Therefore, “there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3.27–8). Here Paul shows that he is aware of the social positions and social structures of his addressees. Since only “there is no Jew or Greek” is relevant to the immediate context, many New Testament scholars conclude that Gal. 3.26–8 is part of a pre-Pauline baptismal formula: Paul cites it in order to affirm the novelty of a new society without discrimination. In the dimension of faith no one is either superior or inferior to anyone else. The formula is radical if read within the context of a Greco-Roman society that was highly stratified and meritocratic, and in a Jewish society that considered itself superior to other nations by virtue of its having the Torah. What is radical about the affirmation is that it touches not only ethnic and religious elements but also social and cultural ones. In a society devoted to patriarchy and servitude to hear that there is no longer slaves nor free or that there is equality between man and woman is to welcome the utopian society, the dream and goal of all the marginalized and unjustly treated.3

In this baptismal text Paul does not incite his Gentile converts to rise against tyranny and slavery in the Roman empire of his time; he does not replace religious, social, and sexual pairs of opposites but depicts the new dignity of all baptized men and women in Christ helping them to endure unjust discrimination and the social differences of their time. Research on Greco-Roman families is still developing as scholars take advantage of the results of archeological excavations, and research into epitaphs, I quote The New American Bible (NAB) translation from The Catholic Study Bible, Oxford University Press, New York, 2006. The Greek word ἀνάγκη means compulsion, necessity. Preaching the Gospel to the Gentiles is for Paul not only God’s will but also a personal joy as a Christian. See exegesis of 1 Cor. 9.16, Joseph A. Fitzmyer: First Corinthians, Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 2008, pp. 367–8. Jerome Murphy-O’Connor, “Preaching is the expression of Paul’s being as Christian; for this, then, he deserves no special credit” in The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Geoffrey Chapman, London, 1992, 49:46. 3 Elza Tamez: “Galatians,” The International Bible Commentary. A Catholic and Ecumenical Commentary for the Twenty-First Century, William R. Farmer (ed.), A Liturgical Press Book, Collegeville, Minnesota 1998, p. 1665. 2



Pauline Guidelines on Christian Families

19

dramas (especially tragedies), satirical poems, and the works of philosophers, medical doctors, and legislators. Here we are interested in the results of firstcentury family research but there is no definitive image of the Greco-Roman family in the towns and provinces of Paul’s time. Legally, a girl could marry at the age of 12, but Roman men waited till their late twenties before marrying. M. V. Hubbard brings out the example of Quintilius, whose wife died at age 18 after bearing him two sons, and who was in his early forties when he married. The family of the bride was expected to provide money or property as a dowry, because the larger the dowry the better the girl’s prospects for marriage would be. While love was not completely unimportant, it was not the most crucial consideration. Marriage partners were chosen by parents on the basis of financial considerations – could the young lady bring a significant dowry into the family coffers? Or social and political advancement – was the man from a prominent family and appropriate class? While many Cynics and Stoics eschewed marriage for the sake of unhindered devotion to philosophy, Epictetus defends the decision of the philosopher Crates to marry by noting that it involved the “special circumstances” of “romantic love.” This, he argues, is quite different from ordinary marriages.4

Roman law recognized a union as a legal marriage (matrimonium, connubium) only when both partners were Roman citizens. Such marriages were “authorized” (iusta matrimonia) while others were “unauthorized” (iniusta matrimonia). A relationship in which one or both partners were slaves was described as contubernium. The wife did not come under her husband’s complete authority, because her father remained her paterfamilias, which meant that the dowry she brought into the marriage would usually be refunded to her family if the marriage was dissolved. Although other marriage unions were treated as illegitimate, they were not considered immoral. In the epitaphs, former slaves refer to each other as husband and wife. The Roman familia consisted of several households under the legal authority of the respective father (paterfamilias). The husband and father had total control of the family property. While husbands and wives were expected to avoid sexual infidelity, women were more severely chastised for it by society. Plutarch, writing around the turn of the second century CE in his Advice on Marriage expects that every activity in a virtuous household should be carried out in agreement by both partners, but he believes M. V. Hubbard, Christianity in the Greco-Roman World: A Narrative Introduction, Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts, 2010, pp. 184–5.

4

20

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

that the wife must subordinate herself to her husband’s governance. He cautions the husband against sexual infidelity, but suggests that the bride overlook her husband’s sexual affairs.5 The marriage of slaves existed at the discretion of their owners, who were entitled to sell one or both partners. The owners could also benefit from contubernia through ownership of any children the couple might have.6 Legally, adultery could be committed only by wives: “In the Roman law, adultery was defined as illicit relationship with or by a married woman or woman of respectable rank. Sexual liaisons by a married man with slaves, courtesans, younger boys or women of lower social orders were legally permissible under most circumstances and involved little, if any, social stigma.”7 Popular writers depict men carrying on with their mistress or boy-favorite in front of their wives, and it is not probable that any humorous genre could have amused its audience without being recognizable, if sometimes exaggerated. While a husband could bring a charge against his wife as an adulteress, Roman law did not afford the same right to the woman. In such a situation there are instances of upper-class wives arranging for unfaithful husbands to be poisoned. In Greco-Roman patriarchal society female honor consisted of preserving family honor by guarding female sexual purity. Because women ultimately have the power that provides legitimate offspring, they must be protected from outsider males and therefore controlled. Women are the weak members of the family for whom sexuality is irresistible and sex drive indiscriminate. But it is women’s very weakness that gives them the fearful power to shame their family through its male members by sexual activity with any male other than a legal husband. Virginity before marriage is a girl’s highest duty and greatest value. The surest way for a male to dishonor an individual man or family is to seduce or rape its women, for this demonstrates that the males lack the power to protect their vulnerable members.8

The question of equality between the sexes was not an issue. In the view of ancient Mediterranean man, his equal could only be a man of similar education and social status, not his wife or any other woman. “Each sex is assigned a role with regard to the other and to the ordering of tasks, both physical and For concrete quotations, see J. S. Jeffers, “Jewish and Christian Families in First-Century Rome,” in K. P. Donfried and P. Richardson (eds), Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome, William Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1998, pp. 128–50. 6 See O. L. Yarbrough, “Paul, marriage and divorce,” J. P. Sampley, Paul in the Greco-Roman World, Trinity Press International, Harrisburg, 2003, pp. 404–28. 7 M. V. Hubbard, op. cit., p. 185. 8 C. Osiek-D. L. Balch, Families in the New Testament World, p. 39. 5



Pauline Guidelines on Christian Families

21

psychosocial, that must be done to sustain the life of the social group. The central issues are how social subgroups perform their assigned role, and how persons within those subgroups conform to the expectation of the group.”9 Aristotle taught in his Politics that by nature men command, and women, slaves, and children obey. The quality of male rule may differ but it remains decisive. Plutarch in his Advice to the Married (142E) “renders a wife a loyal appendage of her husband, thinking as he thinks and worshipping his gods alone. Here, a man ought to rule his wife, not roughly but the way the soul rules the body. From the male point of view, female meant soft, undisciplined and passionate, while male meant the opposite.”10 In the same work the philosopher Aristotle discusses slavery as a social institution within the political system. The city-state is the supreme good and it is composed of households that comprise master and slave, husband and wife, father and children. Slavery according to the philosopher is a natural phenomenon and slaves are live articles of property. “Slaves may be extremely intelligent and have considerable technical skill, but their lack of autonomous rationality means, among other things, that they lack the soul’s deliberative part (bouletikόn) and are incapable of making choices based on deliberation.”11 In contrast to this view the Roman Stoic philosopher Seneca – a contemporary of Paul – taught that all humans share the same rational nature and that slavery is a function of destiny, not a fact of nature. In Letter 47 of his Opera Moralia he pleads with slave owners for the humane treatment of slaves. He shares the dogma of the Stoics that nobody is a slave by nature, because master and slave come from the same seed, and he urges his aristocratic readers to practice the golden rule: “Treat your inferior just as you would like your superior to treat you” (Ep. 47, 10–11). “Seneca’s enlightened perspective is not representative of first-century philosophy as a whole, nor is his argument aimed at undermining the institution of slavery. Seneca’s real concern was the moral development of the slave owner, and his argument serves to strengthen the institution of slavery through improving it. Seneca, after all, was one of the largest slave owners in Rome.”12 He and other Stoic philosophers relativized slavery and freedom by allegorizing these conditions as character attributes of a person. The Stoics defined freedom as self-mastery and so argued that one could be inwardly free, yet outwardly a slave, and vice versa. C. Osiek-D. L. Balch, ibid., p. 41. C. Osiek-D. L. Balch, ibid., p. 55. 11 See J. T. Fitzgerald, “The Stoics and the Early Christians on the Treatment of Slaves,” in T. Rasimus, Tr. Engeberg, Pedersen, and I. Dunderberg (eds), Stoicism in Early Christianity, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010, p. 147. 12 M. V. Hubbard, op. cit., p. 196. 9

10

22

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

Tacitus in his Annals (14, 42–5) reports that in ad 61 Pedanius Secundus, the emperor’s deputy at Rome, was murdered at home by his own slave. The immediate reason for the murder was not clear: the household slave may have expected to be freed at a previously agreed price or the slave and master may have been competitors for the affection of the same slave boy. The Roman senate did not care about the specific motive but ordered, in accordance with ancient custom, the immediate execution of all the slaves living under the same roof. As a result, 400 slaves of different rank, despite protests from the populace on behalf of the innocent, were killed as an example to others of how the Roman authorities would respond to the murder of a slave owner. The narrative of this event is one of the longest surviving passages by a Latin historian describing an episode concerning slaves. Yet it is only two pages in length, and Tacitus includes it in his Annals only to make a rhetorical point about the attempt by urban poor to influence polity. He considered extended writing about the lives and deaths of individual slaves beneath the dignity of a historian.13

Slaves in Roman society were looked on as the property of their masters (dominium) – human beings and their offspring who were subject to being bought and sold. The absolute domination of their masters made them, in effect, dead people walking, without any access to autonomous relations outside the master’s sphere of influence. Slaves were degraded especially through sexual exploitation and physical abuse. Slavery was a form of institutionalized violence, often upheld by the Roman state. Conquest or reconquest was a primary source of new slaves. During a successful conquest, the rebels, the aged and the weak amongst the enemy were killed, according to many of Josephus’ reports, but the able-bodied survivors were captured as slaves. Their fathers were killed; they were enslaved. The powerlessness of these slaves was thus a substitute for death. They were socially dead persons, without birthright, isolated from their social heritage and the traditions of their ancestors, not allowed to inform their understanding of social reality with the inherited meanings of their forebears, or to anchor the living present in any conscious community of memory.14

Roman and Greek slaveholders and sellers used to call their “merchandise” somata – bodies. Alluding to this degrading appellation G. F. Wessels points J. A. Harrill, “Paul and Slavery,” in J. P. Sampley, Paul in the Greco-Roman World, pp. 575–607 (575). G. F. Wessels, “The Letter to Philemon in the Context of Slavery in Early Christianity,” in F. Tolmie (ed.), Philemon in Perspective. Interpreting a Pauline Letter, Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2010, pp. 148–9.

13 14



Pauline Guidelines on Christian Families

23

out that slaves were “bodies but not somebodies,” because they were regarded as objects which had to be controlled, as chattels or as socially dead people. These “bodies” were especially vulnerable to sexual abuse: “Slave owners had free sexual access to the bodies of their slaves, and it was female slaves who were mostly exploited. A householder who impregnated a female slave increased his stock of slaves. A matron who gave birth to the child of a slave disrupted the household; the event would likely be the occasion for a divorce.”15 A very cruel form of slave abuse was the sale of children who, when sold, were not accompanied by an adult. In one record, nine children under the age of 14 were sold alone out of a total of 30 slaves sold and their respective ages were: 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, 13, 14, 13. In another document, out of a total of 21 slaves sold 11 were children under the age of 14. “Of these 11 children, three were sold with an adult, and eight sold alone. The ages of those who were sold with someone else, were 2, 3 and 8. The remaining eight, who were sold on their own, were respectively 3, 4, 7, 8, 8, 8, 8 and 13 years old.”16 Wessels points out that the main reason for allowing slave marriages and families was not “benign treatment” but stabilization of the slave work-force for the benefit of slave owners. If the economic situation of the owner changed for the worse, this would result in the breaking up of slave marriages and families. Slave owners cared little about breaking servile family ties when their economic situation made the sale of a slave attractive or necessary. Musonius Rufus (about ad 30 to ad 100), a Stoic philosopher at Rome and the tutor of the slave-philosopher Epictetus, seems to have been an exception in Paul’s time regarding the human dignity of slaves. His program of teaching included logic and debating skills, for the purpose of developing the ability to rationalize ethical decisions competently. In his time, “if anyone held the sentiment that slavery was wrong, he had to exhibit it with more caution”. And in this respect Musonius went further than any other in antiquity in building a point of view which certainly implied that slaves were and ought to be treated as equal to free men, though he fell short of outright calling for the demise of the slave system. Apart from the obvious egalitarian nature of Musonius’ belief that all human beings are citizens of the city of God, another major doctrine repeated many times by Musonius was that one should endure hardships, and suffer the pains of labor with his own body, rather than depend upon another G. F. Wessels, ibid., p. 159. G. F. Wessels, ibid., p. 153.

15 16

24

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

for sustenance.”17 Musonius, a Roman citizen and member of the equestrian order, worked as a farmer.

Married Christians, Christian slaves and slave owners in First Corinthians and Philemon First, we should notice similarities between Paul and Musonius regarding marriage partners and children in a family. Arguing for marriage as friendship, Musonius says: “The husband and wife should come together for the purpose of making a life in common between them and of procreating the children, and furthermore, of regarding all things in common between them, and nothing peculiar or private to one or another, not even their own bodies” (Fragm. 13A).18 This is in direct opposition to the widespread assumption of that time that the man owns the woman. One of his Fragments is entitled: “That Women, too, Should Pursue Philosophy” (3, 38.30, 31). By philosophy he meant education, and indeed primarily Stoic education. A condition for such education is that studying should not lead women to neglect household duties and proper chastity. In Fragment 12 Musonius argues against the sexual double standard of married men: “If a man thinks there is nothing wrong in illicit sexual relations with a woman as long as no man or family is wronged, he should consider how he would feel if his wife did the same.”19 Musonius and Paul voiced a minority opinion rejecting the common assumption that only the wife need be faithful to her husband. Husbands should be as moral as their wives, which means not having multiple sexual relationships with prostitutes or with their female or male slaves. Most probably Paul was assisted by educated Hellenistic scribes (cf. Gal. 6.11; Rom. 16.22) in writing all his letters to communities of baptized believers in the R. Carrier, “On Musonius Rufus: A Brief Essay (1999),” www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_ carrier/musonius.html (accessed 20 September 2011), p. 4. R. Carrier is an atheist who thinks that Musonius is greater than Jesus. 18 English translation taken from C. Osiek and D. L. Balch, op. cit., p. 115. 19 C. Osiek and D. L. Balch, ibid., p. 56. R. B. Ward, “Musonius and Paul on Marriage,” NTS 36 (1990): 281–9 translated another text by Musonius on marriage partnership: “Where, then, this care (kēdemonía) for each other is perfect and the two share it completely, each striving to outdo the other, this marriage is, therefore, proper and it is worthy of envy, for such an association is beautiful. But where each looks only to one’s own interests and neglects the other, or, by God, when one holds the other thus, and lives in the same house but fixes one’s attention outside, not willing to tend toward one’s yoke-fellow or to achieve unity, then of necessity the association is destroyed and their common interests fare badly, and either they are separated (dialýontai) entirely or they hold their staying together as worse than solitude” (p. 281). 17



Pauline Guidelines on Christian Families

25

Asia Minor, Greece, and Italy of his time. In any case, linguistic, historical, and rhetorical analysis of his letters shows that in addition to a Jewish theological education (Gal. 1.14;20 Acts 22.3) he must also have had an advanced Greek education. His letters to Philemon, the Galatians, and the Romans in particular reflect the patterns of Hellenistic rhetoric.21 An integral part of Greek education was the ability to address the audience in a discourse or epistle supposing their general knowledge and social situation. In 1 Corinthians, writing from Ephesus, Paul comments on the pastoral situation in Corinth as it had been presented “by Chloe’s people” (1.11) and reflected in written questions of the community sent to the apostle (7.1). This inspired letter is not a theological treatise on the cross of Christ, marriage and celibacy, the Eucharist, charismatic gifts, and the resurrection of the body. Rather, it consists of the apostle’s pastoral guidelines to Christians in a Greek town which was also a Roman colony. In 1 Cor. 5.1–13 Paul condemns the sinful tolerance of a baptized Corinthian who has slept with his stepmother after the death of his father. In Judaism as in the Hellenistic world in general, for a man to have sexual intercourse with his father’s wife or concubine or paramour was considered a major violation of the social ethos. Paul wants such a member to be banished temporarily from the community, probably on the basis of Jewish tradition. Banishment from the community was a fairly common form of social sanction in the ancient world.22 Exegetes have discovered that “to deliver this man to Satan” (v. 5) in a parallel Qumran text is a formula of excommunication. Those who carried out the ritual of banishment stipulated by Paul had to reinforce an important aspect of identity: that of belonging to a community which strictly maintains its moral purity by shunning those who do not comply with its standards. The presence of the Lord Jesus in the assembly (vv. 4–5) indicates that the messianic age is at hand and that a public sinner is being punished in accordance with the divine will. Paul presents himself here as apostle and prophet by promising to be

“I progressed in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries among my race” (Gal. 1.14) surely includes education in Torah studies. Did it take place in Jerusalem as Luke says of Paul (Acts 22.3)? Most commentators do not see certain personal confirmation by Paul of his theological studies in Jerusalem under the guidance of Rabbi Gamaliel. See Fr. Mussner, Der Galaterbrief, Herder, Freiburg, 1988, pp. 79–80. J. A. Fitzmyer, The Acts of the Apostles, New York: Doubleday, 1998, pp. 704–5. 21 Cf. R. F. Hock, “Paul and Greco-Roman Education,” in J. P. Sampley, Paul in the Greco-Roman World, pp. 198–227. L. Giuliano, “‘Per un momento’ o ‘per sempre’. La funzione retorica del chiasmo in Fm 15,” Rivista biblica LVIII (2010): 3, 355–69. 22 Cf. R. F. Collins, First Corinthians, Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1999, pp. 205–24. The same author in his book Sexual Ethics and the New Testament. Behavior and Belief, New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company, 2000, pp. 109–27 deals with 1 Cor. 5–7 under the title “The Church at Corinth.” 20

26

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

present in spirit.23 Seemingly disparate sections of this chapter are tied up with the counsels of Paul: “he should be removed from your midst” (v. 2); “clear out the old leaven” (v. 7); “drive out the evil one among you” (v. 13). Paul’s discussion at the end of this chapter, especially in vv. 9–12 is aimed at setting boundary limits to Corinthian Christianity. When he opposes idolatry and various forms of extra-marital sexual relations, he is seeking to form the predominantly Gentile Christian community according to norms of his Jewish background. By way of contrast to what Paul is doing here, in his letter to the Galatians he was likewise setting boundaries for the Christians of Galatian communities in adopting Gentile practices in the face of Judaizing attempts: no circumcision, no obligation to observe the Mosaic law, especially its observance of the Sabbath and dietary regulations.24

In 1 Cor. 6.12–20 Paul continues his discussion of sexual morality begun in 5.1–13, but in the context of human freedom. He quotes three sayings that may have been in use among Corinthians: “For me all things are permissible” (v. 12, translation of J. A. Fitzmyer), “[f]ood for the stomach and the stomach for food but God will do away with both the one and the other” (v. 13) and “[e]very sin that one commits is outside the body” (v. 18). These sayings may have been reported to Paul as maxims in use among Corinthian Christians. Paul quotes the sayings, comments on their implications and asks rhetorical questions. He realizes that they touch the fundamental question of the purpose of human freedom, and even of the human body and food that one gladly eats. He wants the Corinthian Christians to reflect on the purpose of the human body and its sexuality, especially in the light of human freedom, even though he does not present a thorough and formal treatise on either topic.25

With American Catholic commentator J. A. Fitzmyer we can see in this section of 1 Corinthians Paul’s treatment of the abuse of harlotry in terms of the question of whether a Christian is free to do what he or she wants. His main point is expressed in v. 18a: “Pheúgete tēn porneían – Avoid fornication!” Then he brings out five reasons why Christian freedom should have nothing to do with sexually immoral conduct:

Cf. T. Hägerland, “Rituals of (Ex)communication and Identity: 1 Cor 5 and 4Q266 11; 4Q270 7,” B. Homberg and M. Winninge (eds), Identity Formation in the New Testament, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008, pp. 43–60. 24 J. A. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, New Haven: Yale University, 2008, p. 234. 25 J. A. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, p. 261. 23



Pauline Guidelines on Christian Families

27

— The human body (sōma) is made “for the Lord” because human destiny is to be with the Lord (v. 13); — the bodies of Christians are members of the risen Christ (vv. 14–15); — Christians are “joined” to the Lord Jesus and become “one spirit” with him (v. 17); — the body of the Christian is actually the temple of the Holy Spirit, which is within and comes from God (v. 19); — Christians “have been purchased at a price” (v. 20). In contrast to the Greek mentality of opposition between body and soul in each human being, Paul here and elsewhere is a biblical believer who treats the human body as a partner of the soul; human beings are spirited bodies and bodily spirits.26 According to Paul, the responsible freedom of those who through their baptismal faith have associated themselves with the risen Christ and with the believing community as his body (1 Cor. 12.12–13) does not mean license to do whatever one wants. Paul seeks to inculcate detachment as a way of contributing to the good in life. The sexuality of baptized believers must be related to their life in Christ. Having this in mind Paul asks baptized Corinthian men: “Shall I then take Christ’s members and make them the members of a prostitute? Of course not! Or do you not know that anyone who joins himself to a prostitute becomes one body with her?” (vv. 15–16). Paul uses here pornē (prostitute), not hetaira (courtesan or prostitute of higher class) nor hierodoulos (sacred prostitute in temple idol worship). This indicates that the immediate cause of Paul’s discussion of sexual immorality among baptized men is not temple prostitution but fornication and harlotry as a sin against the human body because that body has a special relation to the risen Christ and to God. Even casual extramarital sexual relations “would undo the Christian’s commitment to Christ and the manifestation of him in the world. Paul asks this question of an imaginary interlocutor; it is a rhetorical question used in diatribe-like style, which also depends on his understanding of the verse of Genesis that he is going to quote in v. 16 about maligning contact of bodies in sexual intercourse.”27 R. E. Collins points out that Paul uses here porneía for sexual immorality and that this noun is related to the verb pernēmi (to sell) which suggests some form of paid sex. Paul’s blunt question “don’t you know” (vv. 16 and 19) presupposes that Corinthian Christians know the meaning See the topics “Body; Body of Christ” and “Soul,” in The Collegeville Pastoral Dictionary of Biblical Theology, Carrol Stuhlmueller (ed.), Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1996, pp. 99–106; pp. 936–42. 27 J. A. Fitzmyer, op. cit., pp. 266–7. 26

28

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

of the body of Christ. “Paul dwells extensively on this motif in 12.12–31, when he uses the body metaphor to plead for the unity of the community.”28 Some interpreters see as the main theme in 1 Cor. 5–7 not human sexuality but the role of baptized men.29 Halvor Moxnes believes that in 1 Cor. 6.12–20 the central question is not what shall we do but who shall we become. In Paul’s view a man is his body so that the sexual ethics of the body is an issue where male identity comes into play. In Greco-Roman society the social standing of the free man was expressed also in his sexual rights over all subordinates, regardless of their sex. It was not regarded as shameful for a free man to use prostitutes, but male and female prostitutes incurred shame because of their “profession.” In 1 Cor. 6.16 Paul applies Genesis 2.24—the fundamental biblical text on the positive meaning of marriage—to union with a prostitute, which is a parody, an antitype of marriage and which conflicts with Christ’s claim over baptized believers. The bodies of Christian men are addressed as members of the dead and resurrected body of Christ, which they have become by baptism and by speaking the tongues, and as participants of the coming resurrection. It is this unity that is threatened by sexual unions with prostitutes since such unions destroy this Christian cosmology. Therefore bodily relationships have great consequences. The promises that they will be a temple of God and sharers in the resurrection are significant (6.14, 19). But they come at a price. The free Corinthian man, who considered himself to be in command of his body, is reminded by Paul that his body is not his own. He is like a slave, bought at the market place (6.20). His body tells him that his identity is always determined by his relationships.30

In answering the questions of Corinthians Paul speaks of marriage, slavery, and celibacy in everyday life (7.1–40). J. Murphy-O’Connor sees in 1 Cor. 7 R. F. Collins, First Corinthians, p. 247. “It is misleading to view Paul as a social conservative who cares only for his own community or a Hellenized person with an ideal of unity in Christ at the expense of social diversity. An older view of Paul as a social conservative does not consider Paul’s worldview or ethics in their entirety, making him only a triumphant, systematic theologian or the great founder of Christianity. But Paul’s theology and ethic on behalf of the downtrodden involves a radical theology of the cross. In that regard, we can understand his exchange with the community at Corinth in terms of his envisioning a new world of Christic embodiment … Paul’s urgent concern is to construct a community of ‘all’, but not in the sense of the Stoic ‘unity’ or ‘universal humanity’ at the cost of diversity. In this interpretation, Paul’s solution is very different from the one that the world provides. The problems in the Corinthian situation have to do with the disembodiment of the Christic body” (Yung Suk Kim, Christ’s Body in Corinth. The Politics of a Metaphor, Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004, pp. 54 and 63). 29 See R. Roitto, “Act as Christ-Believer, as a Household Member or as Both? – A Cognitive Perspective on the Relationship between the Social Identity in Christ and Household Identities in Pauline and Deutero-Pauline Texts,” in B. Holmberg and M. Winninge (eds), Identity in Formation, pp. 141–61. H. Moxnes, “Body, Gender and Social Space: Dilemmas in Constructing Early Christian Identities,” Ibid., pp. 163–81. 30 H. Moxnes, art. cit., p. 171. 28



Pauline Guidelines on Christian Families

29

Paul’s treatment of problems connected with the social status of baptized men and women. With him we can discern the following literary and theological elements in Chapter 7: — sexual relations in marriage (vv. 1–9); — marriage and divorce (vv. 10–16); — changes in social status (vv. 17–24); — changes in sexual status (vv. 25–40).31 Some interpreters see the text sections differently,32 but they agree that the central section is 7.17–24 (connected with vv. 29–31) where marriage, celibacy, business affairs and slavery are depicted in an eschatological light: Christians can remain in any marital state and social position in which God’s call to faith has reached them. “It is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman” (v. 1). This is the slogan of Corinthian enthusiasts who believed that married couples should abstain from sexual relations, probably due to the forthcoming parousia of the Lord or to an anachronistic reading of Paul’s previous letter. They may have cited Paul’s own example of celibacy (vv. 7–8). In verses 2–7 Paul advocates monogamous marriage and the equal marital rights and duties of husbands and wives: “The husband should fulfill his duty toward his wife, and likewise the wife toward her husband” (v. 3). Baptized Corinthian men may have used their baptism as an excuse to escape commitments already made by marriage contract but Paul reminds them that they must honor commitments already contracted.33 In insisting that husbands and wives have equal conjugal obligations and equal sexual rights in line with Genesis 2.24 Paul eliminates selfishness from this aspect of marital life. In v. 7 Paul characterizes as ídion chárisma (one’s particular J. Murphy-O’Connor, “The First Letter to the Corinthians,” The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, 49: 34–40. R. F. Collins, op. cit., pp. 251–304: sex within marriage (7.1–7); special situations (7.8–16); remaining as you were called (7.17–24); advice for the unmarried (7.25–35); to marry or not to marry (7.36–40). J. A. Fitzmyer, op. cit., pp. 272–329: a. marriage is good, celibacy is good: their obligations and place (7.1–9); b. the Lord’s command: no divorce (7.10–11); c. Paul’s advice: peaceful mixed marriage, but Pauline concession (7.12–16); d. basic principle: remain in the status in which you were called (7.17–24); e. advantage of virginity (7.25–35); f. marriage of a virgin in certain conditions (7.36–8); g. marriage of a widow (7.39–40). W. Schrage, Der Erste Brief an die Korinther. 2. Teilband 1 Kor 6,12–11,16, Benziger Verlag, Düsseldorf, 1995, pp. 48–211: 1 Ehe und Ehelosigkeit 7,1–7; 2 Mahnungen an verschieden Gruppen (Unverheiratete, Verheiratete, in Mischehen Lebende) 7,8–16; 3 Bewährung am Ort der Berufung 7,17–24; 4 Über die Verlobten 7,25–40; 4,1 Empfehlungen zum Verbleib als Nichtgebundene 7,25–8; 4,2 Eschatologische und christologische Gründe 7,29–35; 4,3 Konkrete Ratschläge für Verlobte 7,36–40. 33 See Mary Ann Getty, “1 Corinthians,” The Collegeville Bible Commentary, Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 1992, pp. 1113–14. 31

32

30

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

gift) the commitment of married Christians to lifelong loving partnership and his own celibacy motivated by faith: “Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am, but each has a particular gift from God, one of one kind and one of another!” If the unmarried, widows, and widowers cannot exercise self-control they should marry “for it is better to marry than to be burned” (v. 9). The passive infinitive pyrousthai can also be translated “to be on fire with passion, be inflamed with desire.” The precise meaning of this expression in its context should be drawn from: “If they cannot exercise self-control (ei ouk enkrateuontai)” in the same verse. Some interpreters see here an allusion to physical intimacy outside marriage as an occurrence at Corinth (1 Cor. 5.1–5; 6.12–20). This verb denotes “the absence of the power to rank one’s feelings in relations to strict goal”34 (see enkrateia in Galatians 5.23 and 1 Corinthians 9.25). If they do not have power over their passions, for them it is better to marry than to burn. In 1 Cor. 7.1–9 Paul brings out three negative reasons for marrying rather than “being burned”: a) “because of instances of fornication” (v. 2); b) “that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control” (v. 7); c) “it is better to marry than to burn” (v. 9). This does not mean that Paul regards marriage as “an unavoidable evil” (R. Bultmann). “What has to be noted in the course of this lengthy chapter is the otherwise positive form of the statements that Paul makes. He makes use of the comparative kreitton/kreisson, ‘better’ only in the restricted remarks of vv. 9 and 38; so he is not saying that celibacy or virginity is a better calling than marriage, as the teaching of this chapter is often paraphrased or encapsulated. For otherwise he employs kalon, ‘good’, especially when he sets forth his principles (vv. 1, 8, 26 bis). His statements are consequently measured and should be judged accordingly.”35 In vv. 10–11 Paul transfers the commandment of the Lord Jesus that believing spouses should not separate or if they separate they should remain unmarried. In Paul’s time the canonical gospels were not yet written, but preached, and material about Jesus’ words and deeds was transmitted to Christian communities by historical witnesses and their collaborators. As one of the evangelizers, Paul had taken from Peter and other apostles essential points of their preaching about Jesus (Gal. 1.18; 2.9; 1 Cor. 15.3–5, 8, 11). Here Paul reacts to discussion among baptized Corinthians about marriage and divorce. He reminds his addressees that the Lord’s prohibition of divorce is absolute, as it has been transmitted in Mark 10.9–11 and Luke 16.18. In the Judaism of Paul’s time only A. C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2000, p. 518. 35 J. A. Fitzmyer, First Corinthians, p. 275. 34



Pauline Guidelines on Christian Families

31

the husband was entitled to initiate divorce but Paul was well aware of divorces enacted both by husbands and wives in Greco-Roman marriages, especially by upper-class women as satirically witnessed by Paul’s contemporary Seneca in De Beneficiis III, 16,2.36 “For Paul, the reason for disallowing divorce is the unitive character of marriage and the mutual giving of the persons of the spouses, yes even of their bodies (vv. 3–4), in the spirit of Christian love, which ‘does not seek its own interest’ (13.5b).”37 In vv. 12–16 Paul deals with mixed marriages where one spouse is Christian. If the non-Christian partner consents to go on living in such a marriage the Christian partner should stick to his or her marriage vows because “the unbelieving husband is made holy through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is made holy through the brother” (v. 14). Paul uses here adelphos (brother) for baptized husband in the sense of membership in the Church as the body of Christ. The verb hagiazō means “to set something aside for a cultic purpose, consecrate” and is used here in the perfect passive, which in Biblical Greek means that this consecration is produced by God. Since in the following sentence “holy” is contrasted with “unclean”, baptized Christian spouses may have feared that a mixed marriage would make them unclean and make the community unclean. Paul is convinced that the unbelieving partner somehow shares in God’s covenant people through the baptized partner, regardless of whether he or she should ever accept Christianity. In v. 15 Paul permits separation where the unbelieving partner does not consent to a tolerant married life, since God has called Christians to peace: Paul uses the verb “to call” (kaleō) of the Christian vocation. God has called the Christian in peace (en eirēnę); that call has lasting effects (keklēken, in the perfect). Peace is God’s gift (1:3; 14:33). Paul’s understanding of “peace” is one in which the biblical notion of shalom has been assumed into a Christian context. The biblical notion of peace includes the marital wellbeing of those whom God has blessed with divine peace. Peace is the order of creation brought to fulfillment.38 L. A. Seneca, Moral Essays III, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1975, pp. 155–6: “Is there any woman that blushes at divorce now that certain illustrious and noble ladies reckon their years, not by the number of consuls, but by the number of their husbands, and leave home in order to marry, and marry in order to be divorced? They shrank from this scandal as long as it was rare; now, since every gazette has a divorce case, they have learned to do what they used to hear so much about. Is there any shame at all for adultery now that matters have come to such a pass that no woman has any use for a husband except to inflame her paramour? Chastity is simply a proof of ugliness (argumentum est deformitatis pudititia).” 37 J. A. Fitzmyer, op. cit., p. 292. 38 R. F. Collins, op. cit., p. 267. 36

32

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

Verse 16 can be understood in two ways; optimistically: “For all you know, wife, you might save your husband; or for all you know, husband, you might save your wife” (Fitzmyer, p. 297; Murphy-O’Connor, 49:38). This would mean there is a hope for the conversion of the unbelieving partner. But it can also be understood pessimistically: “For how do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband; or how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife” (NAB, 2006, p. 1525; Collins, p. 262). An optimistic understanding is better suited to the immediate context because “Paul is trying to get spouses in all marital unions to reflect on the ultimate good that they can do to and for each other.”39 In 7.17–24 Paul brings out his pastoral principle of remaining in the social status in which Jews, Gentiles, men, women, and slaves have been called. This principle is enunciated in v. 17: “Everyone should live as the Lord has assigned, just as God has called each one. I give this order in all the churches.” It is then reiterated in v. 20, and repeated again in v. 24. Most puzzling is v. 21, concerning baptized slaves, because Paul’s Greek expression all’ ei kai dynasai eleútheros genésthai, mallon chrēsai can be understood in several ways: “Even if there is a possibility that you might come to be free, rather, start to make positive use of the present” (Thiselton, p. 544), or “But if you indeed can gain your freedom, take advantage rather of it” (Fitzmyer, p. 305). Is Paul counseling the baptized slaves to remain slaves even when they have a chance to become legally free or does he propose that they take any chance of freedom? The elliptical phrase mallon chrēsai (adv. “rather, exceedingly” and aor. imper. of chraomai – “to make use of something,” but here used without a grammatical object)40 is problematic. To make mallon chrēsai intelligible, an object must be understood. Some interpreters supply tę douleią (slavery), others tę eleutherią (freedom). “The verb hraomai is used without a grammatical object by Paul only in 7.21. It sometimes means ‘to live in accordance with’ (thus 27x in Josephus). Arguing from this connotation of the verb and the parallelism between v. 20c and v. 19c, Bartchy has suggested that Paul’s elliptical phrase means ‘by all means live according to God’s call’.”41 The passage on changes in social status (7.17–24) gets its full meaning from 7.29–31 where Paul advises Christians to go about the ordinary activities of life aware of their transitoriness. He expected an imminent parousia (1 Thess. 4.16–17; 1 Cor. 15.51–52) and recommended detachment: “From now J. A. Fitzmyer, op. cit., p. 303. “The thrust of Paul’s overall argument (7; 10–24) and the semantic difference between ‘save’ (v. 16) and ‘making holy’ (v. 14) suggest that optimistic reading of the text is the preferable reading” – R. F. Collins, ibid., p. 272. 40 J. A. Harrill, “Paul and Slavery,” in J. P. Sampley (ed.), Paul in the Greco-Roman World, p. 586, brings out 8 translations of 1 Cor. 7.21 into English. 41 R. F. Collins, op. cit., p. 286. 39



Pauline Guidelines on Christian Families

33

on, let those having wives act as not having them […] those using this world as not using it fully. For the world in its present form is passing away” (v. 29, 30). In his eschatological perspective Paul points out that baptized Corinthians and other Christians must face the everyday realities of life by maintaining a distance from them and keeping in mind the ultimate reality. Recent interpreters of Paul’s Letter to Philemon do not see in its text any proof that Onesimus is a runaway slave. He was probably sent by his Christian master Philemon to the locality of Paul’s imprisonment, was baptized by Paul and after a prolonged absence for unknown reasons asked for a letter of recommendation as safe conduct for his return home.42 Interpreters also draw attention to the complete Pauline structure of the letter: greeting (v. 1–2), thanksgiving to God for the faith of the community (4–6), main topic on the slave Onesimus who has joined Christ and the Church by becoming a brother to his owner (7–22), concluding news and greetings (23–25). It is not a private letter from Paul to his former collaborator, because it was destined to be read to the church coming together at Philemon’s and Apphia’s house (v. 2). Paul points out with joy that he has become Onesimus’ spiritual father while in prison and that the new convert can help him in proclaiming the Gospel (vv. 10–13). He expects Philemon to treat Onesimus humanely and fraternally and hints at the liberation of this baptized slave: “With trust in your compliance I write to you knowing that you will do even more than I say” (v. 21). There are abundant terms of endearment and respect for Philemon in the letter because Philemon as a Christian slave owner had to make a crucial decision. Although there is no explicit request to set Onesimus free, Paul implicitly expects Philemon to do this. True, Paul failed to denounce slavery as an inhumane system. However, in the Roman empire of Paul’s time it was unthinkable to speak of its abolition. But the manumission of a specific slave was not hard to imagine. It happened every day. So, the manumission of Onesimus was indeed an option to Philemon. The cumulative significance of Paul’s suggestive phrases – that Philemon should receive Onesimus back “no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a beloved brother”, both “in the flesh and in the Lord” (v. 16), and “welcome him as you would welcome me” (v. 17), as well as the phrase, “knowing that you will do even more than I say” (v. 21) – can hardly be understood as implying that Philemon should merely receive back his slave without punishing him.43 See D. F. Tolmie, “Tendencies in the Research on the Letter to Philemon since 1980,” in D. F. Tolmie (ed.), Philemon in Perspective. Interpreting a Pauline Letter, Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2010, pp. 1–27. G. F. Wessels, “The Letter to Philemon in the Context of Slavery in Early Christianity,” in D. F. Tolmie, Philemon in Perspective, p. 164.

42

43

34

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

From the canonical text we cannot know whether Philemon acted on this hint from Paul, but “that he reacted generously is almost certain, or the letter would not have been preserved.”44 According to Colossians 4.7–9, Tychicus and Onesimus, Paul’s fellow slaves in the Lord (diakonos kai syndoulos en Kyriō) are mentioned as carriers of Paul’s letter from the locality of his imprisonment to the baptized community at Colossae. Onesimus is depicted as “a trustworthy and beloved brother, one of you.” Tradition holds that Onesimus was forgiven and freed by Philemon and that later he succeeded Timothy as leader of the Christian community at Ephesus. He died a martyr’s death. The Letter to Philemon did not motivate Christian leaders and theologians to look for the abolition of the slave system in the Roman empire after Constantine granted his Christian subjects freedom to practice their monotheistic religion. Only gradually did individual interpreters of Philemon propose that Christian slave owners set their slaves free.45 “The New Testament nowhere condemns slavery, and in the nature of the case it is not likely that any condemnation would have had much effect; but the Old Testament legislation already contains some mitigation of the evils of slavery (cf. Exod. 21.1–11; Lev. 25.39–55; Deut. 15.12–18) and the New Testament sets out principles which were eventually to lead to the abolition of the institution: in Christ, says Paul, there is ‘neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free’ (Gal. 3.28; cf. 1 Cor. 12.13; Col. 3.11), and both Ephesians (6.5–9) and Colossians (3.22–4.1), as well as Philemon himself, seek to inculcate a new attitude among both slaves and masters, a spirit of Christian charity, since both are servants of the Lord. This spirit was to spread with the growth of the Church, and led in time to mitigation of slavery in the later Roman empire and to its eventual disappearance in the western world of the Renaissance.”46

R. E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, Doubleday, New York, 1996, p. 506. See Fr. Laub, Die Begegnung des frühen Christentums mit der antiken Sklaverei, Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk, Stuttgart, 1982. J. Gnilka, “Die Sklaven im frühen Christentum,” in Der Philemonbrief, Herder, Freiburg, 1982, pp. 71–81. J. T. Fitzgerald, “Theodore of Mopsuestia on Paul’s Letter to Philemon,” in D. F. Tolmie, Philemon in Perspective, pp. 333–63. Theodore was active as a Bible interpreter and bishop in the late fourth and early fifth centuries (died ad 428). On p. 351 Fitzgerald evaluates Theodore as one of the proto-abolitionists in quoting his statement: “But if someone found such a case, he would neither entreat nor seek that the slave should be pardoned by his master, but write with much authority that a slave ‘joined to us in faith and hastening to true religion of his own free will ought to be freed from slavery’. For there are many people like this at the present time, who want to see themselves circumspect (cauti) by imposing burdensome orders on others (264,8–14).” 46 R. McL. Wilson, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Colossians and Philemon, London: T&T Clark International, 2005, p. 329. I am not aware of any recent monograph on the history of the interpretation of Philemon from the point of view of how it influenced Christian and public opinion on the abolition of slavery. 44 45



Pauline Guidelines on Christian Families

35

Discerning inspired message from social stereotypes in the household code of Ephesians 5.21–6.9 In Ephesians 1.1, en Ephésō is absent from several important Greek manuscripts. This phenomenon, and Marcion’s designation of this epistle as “to the Laodiceans,” “have led many commentators to suggest that the letter was intended as an encyclical, copies being sent to various churches, of which that of Ephesus was chief.”47 Historically Paul performed his ministry at Ephesus for three years (Acts 20.31) but in this letter there are no remarks by the author about the concrete situation of his addressees, as are found in 1 Thessalonians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Corinthians, Philemon. Some important aspects of Paul’s doctrine are missing and new themes have been introduced. This is why most modern interpreters consider that this letter was written by a disciple of Paul about 20 years after the martyr’s death. There are, however, still scholars who believe Ephesians is a Pauline document and explain all the differences with the hypothesis that the work was copied by an authorized scribe.48 Christian scholars who suppose that Ephesians was written after the Apostle’s death respect its canonicity but seek to offer a convincing explanation of its theology and diversities in comparison to the strictly Pauline letters. For example, the metaphor of Church as social body was used by Paul in Galatians and 1 Corinthians to highlight the equality of men and women, while his disciple in Ephesians using the same metaphor emphasizes the obedience of women to men keeping in mind the hostile environment of the addressees.49 According to Ephesians 1.9–10, in the glorified Christ, God “has made known to us the mystery of his will in accord with his favor that he set forth in him as a plan for the fullness of times, to sum up all things in Christ (anakephalaiōsasthai B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Second Edition, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2001, p. 531. 48 For example, H. W. Hoehner, Ephesians. An Exegetical Commentary, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2002. Fr. Thielman, Ephesians, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2010. On p. 5 he says: “This means, in turn, that if Ephesians is pseudonymous, it is something of an anomaly among Christian pseudonymous letters. It urges its readers to speak truthfully, but resorts to lying about its own author without any clear moral justification. As the rest of this introduction and the commentary itself will try to show, however, there is no need to picture the author of this text in this way. The text makes sense as an authentic letter from Paul to Christians in Ephesus, written at the end of a lengthy period of imprisonment and thus after nearly all of his undisputed correspondence (i.e. Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, and Philemon).” On the same page, note 12, he says: “Moreover, the idea that the household code in Ephesians was written to ease tensions between Christians and the wider society (MacDonald 2000: 159–69; 337–38; Osiek and McDonald 2006: 118–43; cf. Merz 2000: 132,146) runs aground on the countercultural nature of the household code itself (5:25; 6:9) and of the letter generally (2:1–3; 4:17–19; 5:3–14).” 49 Cf. C. Gil Arbiol, “La evoluciόn del cuerpo en la tradiciόn paulina y sus consecuencias sociales y eclesiales,” Estudios biblicos 68 (2010): 1, 73–105. 47

36

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

ta panta en tō christō), in heaven and on earth.” The verb anakephalaiōsasthai means “to unite under one head.” In classical Greek it could mean “to sum up an argument in a speech,” in the Greek of the Church Fathers it means “to repeat, to renew,” but it contains the idea “to head up, to make Christ the head.” Colossians 1.20 and Ephesians 1.10 “presuppose that the universe had come into chaos on account of sin and God will restore it to its original harmony in Christ.”50 In Ephesians 1.22–3 God gave Christ as head over all and made him the head of the Church which is his body. Christ is head of the universe in the sense that he fills all that exists, the whole cosmos (Col. 1.19). In his glorified state he also fills the Church as his metaphorical body which in its turn continues through its pastoral activity Christ’s mission in the world.51 In 4.15–16, Christians are summoned to live the truth in love and grow in every way into Christ, the head bringing about the body’s growth in love. Here Christ the head is the source and goal of Christian growth as individuals and as community. In Ephesians 5.23–5 Christ as self-sacrificing and loving head of the Church is the model for Christian husbands who should similarly protect and love their wives and children. The connection between Christ and the Church in Ephesians is sometimes so close as to suggest a complete merger of the Church with Christ’s divinity. The Church is much more than earthly community; it is a heavenly reality with cosmic dimensions. It is not surprising that Ephesians has been central to the development of the ecclesiological concept of the Church as the “mystical communion” – a powerful metaphor for community identity and purpose. But as modern ecclesiologists point out, such language is not without its limits. It can lead to an unhealthy divinization of the Church and should be balanced with alternate understandings of the Church as “herald of the good news” and “suffering servant’.’52

The household code in Ephesians 5.21–6.9 is the application of Christ’s cosmic and ecclesial headship to Christian family conduct in the Roman empire of the first century ad.53 With most interpreters, I treat 5.21 as its introductory principle, but I would not entitle the whole section “Submission in the Believing H. W. Hoehner, ibid., p. 220. Among numerous monographs on world view and Christology in Ephesians, cf. R. Schwindt, Das Weltbild des Epheserbriefes. Eine religions-geschichtlich-exegetische Studie, Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2002. 52 Margaret Y. MacDonald, “Ephesians,” in The International Bible Commentary. A Catholic and Ecumenical Commentary for the Twenty-First Century, Collegeville, MI: The Liturgical Press, 1998, p. 1678. 53 Cf. M. Barth, Ephesians, New York: Doubleday, 1974, pp. 606–758 where the commentary of this section is entitled “Christ’s rule in all realms.” 50 51



Pauline Guidelines on Christian Families

37

Household”54 because I see as the central concept in it mutual love and respect of husbands and wives, parents and children, masters and slaves after the model of Christ and the Church. In v. 21 the inspired author enjoins all members of the Christian household: “Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ!” Aware of the social context of his addressees the inspired author brings out in this household code rules governing three sets of relationships: — husbands and wives (5.21–33); — parents and children (6.1–3); — masters and slaves (6.4–9). Besides quoting a basic Old Testament text on marriage as God’s institution for the good of human couples (Gen. 2.24), in Ephesians 5.31 the author also recalls the covenant relationship between Israel and God. The familiar prophetic metaphor of Israel as God’s wife, where God remains faithful despite Israel’s breaking away from covenantal fidelity, is used here to compare Christ’s relationship with the Church and to illustrate how Christian husbands ought to relate to their wives and women to their husbands. The issue of faithfulness so prominent in the prophetic image is left behind, and issues of love, nurture, submission and respect predominate. These issues are far more familiar from pagan and Jewish philosophical reflections on good household management than they are from Israel’s religious experience of God. And because the metaphor has been changed into a description of reality, it has become subject to enormous abuse.55

The Christian Bible scholar Elizabeth Johnson invites modern interpreters of Ephesians to discern the inspired message of the canonical author from social categories of his time. This is why we should strive to understand the historical circumstances of this New Testament writing. The authors of the monograph Families in the New Testament World see in Colossians and Ephesians a philosophical and political Christology where the body must submit to the head: “As these churches became more a part of their society, as they lived in the institution of Greco-Roman households, they were tempted to and in varying degrees did accept its social distinctions.”56 F. Thielman, Ephesians, pp. 365–410. E. Elizabeth Johnson, “Ephesians,” The Women’s Bible Commentary, Louisville, KT: Westminster/ John Knox Press, 1992, p. 340. 56 C. Osiek and D. L. Balch, Families in the New Testament World, p. 183. 54 55

38

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

The doctrine on Christ as “head” of the cosmos and of the Church is Christian counter-culture in a time when Caesar was worshiped as head of the Roman Empire. The use of the family as a model has the positive consequence of providing an opportunity for mission in concrete society, but at the same time it somehow reinforced the social limits and inequality “now in the name of God.” These developments did not happen all at once or even simultaneously. A great variety of approaches can be seen at approximately the same time even in a given geographical area, such as the Gospel of Matthew, the letters of Ignatius, and the Didache show for Syria in the late first and early second century. Perhaps, though, some sort of progression can also be seen, from Paul’s lack of direct interest in families, to the household as a model of the church in deuteroPauline letters, to the usurping of household subordinationist terminology and values by Ignatius and later writers.57 These critical observations of Christian Bible scholars who live in egalitarian societies may sound exaggerated and may appear to transplant a modern mentality to the era of the New Testament. But they should be studied seriously. At this ecumenical conference on the family I would like to refer briefly to the problem of translating doulos, douloi in New Testament texts on the family, since modern readers have no experience of slave ownership. Should we look for a replacement expression that would be more inspirational and appropriate for modern Christian readers? I recently came across the Commentary on Ephesians by the Serbian Orthodox theologian Justin Popović (1894–1979).58 He translates douloi in Ephesians 6.5–6 as sluge (servants), probably to make the holy text more appealing to readers who socially depend on working in somebody else’s farm or firm. To make bearable the daily work of such readers he states: “It is God’s will that servants and lords exist in the world.”59 His younger contemporary Emilijan Čarnić (1914–95), who translated the New Testament into modern Serbian60 and published his Commentary on Ephesians as a Bible scholar, translates douloi as “robovi” (slaves). In explaining the mutual obedience (Eph. 5.21), he points out that we Christians should take as our model C. Osiek and D. L. Balch, ibid., p. 221. Otac Justin Popović, Tumačenje Poslanice svetog apostola Pavla, Beograd, 1983 (in Cyrillic script). 59 “Da bude slugu i gospodara u svetu, to je volja Božja” – Idem, p. 153. Italics in Serbian edition of the book. 60 First published in Belgrade in 1973 by the Serbian Bible Society and after that reprinted several times. The Serbian Orthodox Church did not accept it as its official translation. I was told by Dr. Irinej Bulović, Professor of the New Testament at the Theological faculty of the Serbian Orthodox Church in Belgrade, who supervised the official edition of the Vuk Karadžic New Testament translation, that the reason was and still is that Serbian Orthodox clergy and lay faithful prefer Karadžić because of its traditional liturgical Serbian. 57 58



Pauline Guidelines on Christian Families

39

Christ who rejects any attempt to rule others. “He who obeys should obey as if he was subordinate to Christ and he who commands should take Christ as his model of love and care and not forget that he also should obey Christ.”61

Conclusion Paul’s doctrine on the mutual relations of Christian husbands and wives, parents and children, masters and slaves is an integral part of his belief in Jesus the glorified Lord, with whom believers are connected through their baptism, and about the Church as the social body of Christ where members can and should serve one another. In contrast to Galatians, 1 Corinthians, and Philemon, where a new eschatological dignity of all is highlighted, in the household code of Ephesians 5.21–6.9 the obedience of wives to their husbands may be disturbing to modern Christian readers, especially educated women, who live in egalitarian societies. This accentuates the need to look at 5.21 as the central verse in the pericope where all members of believing families are enjoined to “subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ.” Such a subordination in Christian marriage is acceptance of mutual dependence and serving the needs of “the other” as husbands and wives, parents and children. In the new Catholic marriage liturgy one of the offered gospel pericopes is Jesus’ answer to the question of the greatest commandment (Mt. 22.35–40). Paul has preserved this saying of Jesus in his own way and in a different context (Rom. 13.8–10). The first relations to married couples and their children are the members of their own family. Hence, “while we have the opportunity, let us do good to all, but especially to those who belong to the family of the faith” (Gal. 6.10).

E. Čarnić, Sv. Apostola Pavla Poslanica Efescima, Beograd, 1969, p. 59. Serbian text: “Ko je drugome poslušan treba da sluša – kao da Hrista sluša, a onaj kome je drugi poslušan treba u Hristu da vidi svoj uzor ljubavi i brige, te da ne zaboravi da je i sam dužan da bude Hristu poslušan.”

61

3

The Christian Family according to the Sacred Canons of the Orthodox Church. Orthodox aspects vis-à-vis modern Greek legislation.1 Elena Giannakopoulou First, I would like to thank Rev. Fr. Nicu Dumitraşcu for his invitation to participate in this Conference. I would also like to clarify straightaway that in this paper the term “Christian family” indicates the Orthodox family in Greece. Our presentation examines the Sacred, or Holy, or Divine Canons (= Regulations)2 as decreed (or confirmed)3 by the first seven Ecumenical Councils (325–787) of Acknowledgment: This research was partially funded by the University of Athens Special Account of Research Grants no. 10812. Regarding the term “Sacred or Holy or Divine Canons”: The same regulations, that is, canonical sources, characterize themselves as “holy” [s. the 1st canon of the regional synod of Antioch: D. Cummings (trans.), Agapius a Hieromonk and Nicodemus a Monk, The Rudder Of the metaphorical ship of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of the Orthodox Christians, or all the sacred and divine canons of the holy and renowned Apostles, of the holy Councils, ecumenical as well as regional, and of individual fathers, as embodied in the original Greek text, for the sake of authenticity, and explained in the vernacular by way of rendering them more intelligible to the less educated …, (Chicago: The Orthodox Christian Educational Society, 1957; repr., New York: Luna Printing Co., 1983=Pedalion (= The Rudder)], p. 534], “sancted” [s. the 2nd Canon of the Ecumenical Council “in Trullo” [Pedalion (= The Rudder), 294–295] and the 2nd Canon of the Seventh Ecumenical Council (787 ad) [Pedalion (= The Rudder), p. 430], or “divine” {1st and 11th Canons of the Seventh Ecumenical Council [Pedalion (= The Rudder), p. 428 and 440]. These regulations are so called because they were formulated by the Fathers (who had participated in the first seven Ecumenical Councils) under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. S. a characteristic passage (translated into English) of the 1st Canon of the Seventh Ecumenical Council:

1

2

  … Seeing that these things are so and are attested to us, and rejoicing at them “as one that findeth great spoil,” we welcome and embrace the divine Canons, and we corroborate the entire and rigid fiat of them that have been set forth by the renowned Apostles, who were and are trumpets of the Spirit, and those both of the six holy Ecumenical Councils and of the ones assembled regionally for the purpose of setting forth such edicts, and of those of our holy Fathers. For all those men, having been guided by the light dawning out of the same Spirit, prescribed rules that are to our best interest. [Pedalion (= The Rudder), p. 428]. In this paper we use the three terms mentioned above as synonyms, expressing the same Orthodox theological faith. 3 Ecumenical Councils have not only decreed new, original regulations, but also confirmed the correctness of previous regulations of specific regional synods (Gangra, Neocaesarea, Laodicaea, Carthage etc.) and of some writings of the Holy Fathers [s. the 2nd Canon of the Ecumenical Council “in Trullo,” Pedalion (= The Rudder), pp. 294–5]. Important note: Correlating canonical decisions of these regional synods and Holy Fathers are mentioned in this paper where necessary.

42

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

the ancient Christian Church, vis-à-vis modern Greek legislation,4 and focuses on the following:

Marriage Both Sacred Canons and modern Greek legislation acknowledge two forms of marriage, religious and civil.5 There are various issues related to either of them, but in this paper we have chosen to examine the following.

Religious marriage Holy Canons indicate two different ways of living for members of the Christian Church: a) marriage; and b) virginity.6 As regards the first, Sacred Canons, following the doctrine of the Holy Bible (Gen. 1. 26–7), repeat that the sacrament of marriage is established by God-Creator: “God made man male and female,”7 blessed them and said: “Be fruitful, and multiply; and replenish the earth!”8 Marriage is blessed by God, and for this reason Jesus Christ blessed a marriage by his presence in Cana of Galilee. The Canon expressing most vividly the establishment and nature of marriage is the 13th Canon of the Ecumenical Council “in Trullo”9 (about 691–2), dictating that God constituted marriage and blessed it by his presence. In the words of the Gospel: “What therefore God hath joined together, let no man put asunder; also, according to the Apostle’s On the relations between the Greek State and the Orthodox Church, s.: Ph. Spyropoulos, Die Beziehungen zwischen Staat und Kirche in Griechenland unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der orthodoxen Kirche, (Athens 1981); I. Konidaris, “Die Beziehungen zwischen Kirche und Staat im heutigen Griechenland,” Österreichisches Archiv für Kirchenrecht 40 (1991): 131–44; Sp. Troianos, “Die Beziehungen zwischen Staat und Kirche in Griechenland,” Orthodoxes Forum 6 (1992): 221–31; I. Konidaris, The Conflict between Legitimacy and Normativity and the Substantiation of their Congruence, (Athens: Ant. Sakkoulas 1994) (in Greek). Ch. Papastathis, “Le régime constitutionnel des cultes en Grèce,” The Constitutional Status of Churches in the European Union Countries, (European Consortium for Church-State Research, Paris-Milano 1995) pp. 153–69; idem, “Staat und Kirche in Griechenland,” G. Robbers (ed.), Staat und Kirche in der Europäischen Union, (Baden-Baden: Nomos 1995), pp. 79–98; idem, “The Hellenic Republic and the Prevailing Religion,” Brigham Young University Law Review 4 (1996): 815–52. 5 See Th. Giagou, «Προσεγγίσεις στὴν κανονικὴ διδασκαλία περὶ γάμου», in: idem, Κανόνες καὶ Λατρεία, (Thessaloniki: Mygdonia 2006), pp. 293–305. 6 See 21st Canon of the regional synod in Gangra, 1st Canon of Saint Athanasius the Great and 22nd Canon of the Seventh Ecumenical Council [Pedalion (= The Rudder), pp. 451–2, 531, 759–60]. 7 51st Canon of the Holy Apostles, [Pedalion (= The Rudder), p. 91]. 8 See 1st Canon of Saint Athanasius the Great (= epistle addressed to the monk Amun), [Pedalion (= The Rudder), p. 759]. 9 It is well-known as the Ecumenical Council “in Trullo” (= dome), because it was held in the same domed hall of the imperial palace in Constantinople where the Fathers-Members of the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680–1) had met. 4



The Christian Family according to the Sacred Canons of the Orthodox Church 43

teaching: Marriage is honorable, and the bed is undefiled,” and: “Art10 thou11 bound unto a wife? Seek not to be freed.”12 Furthermore, the 1st Canon of Saint Athanasius the Great is in accordance with the aforementioned doctrine of the Holy Bible, repeating that “marriage is honorable and the bed undefiled”;13 in this case the “undefiled bed” being distinguished from “the popular kind, performed clandestinely and adulterously.”14 The 4th Canon of Saint Gregory of Nyssa specifies the type of legal and generally acceptable marriage: […] for there is but one lawful state of matrimony and conjugal relationship, namely, that of wife to husband and of husband to wife. Everything, then, that is not lawful is unlawful at any rate, including even the case in which a man has no wife of his own, but has that of another man. For only one helper was given to man by God (Gen. 2:20), and only one head was set over woman. “That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honor”, as divine Paul says (I Thess. 4:4–5), the law of nature permits the right use of it.15

In accordance with the New Testament, the 87th Canon of Saint Basil the Great states: “If anyone rushes into marriage by law, the whole inhabited earth is opened to him; but if his zeal is the result of passion, it will only serve the more to exclude him, ‘that everyone should know enough to keep his vessel in sanctitude and honor, not in the lust of concupiscence’ (I Thess. 4.4–5).”16 More specifically, the Fathers assembled at Gangra declare in their 21st Canon: “we honour modest cohabitation of matrimony rate”17. Furthermore, marriage is described as “the more moderate and helpful road conducive to life, that of marriage”;18 but, “if anyone should choose the mundane life – that is to say, the way of marriage, though he is not liable to censure or blame.”19 Furthermore, the value of the institution of marriage is illustrated in a series of canonical rules condemning abhorrence (disgust) to marriage20 and characterizing marriage as

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 10 11 12

Sic. Sic. 13th Canon of Ecumenical Council “in Trullo,” [Pedalion (= The Rudder), p. 305]. 1st Canon of Saint Athanasius the Great [Pedalion (= The Rudder), p. 759]. See the previous footnote. Pedalion (= The Rudder), p. 871. Pedalion (= The Rudder), p. 844. Pedalion (= The Rudder), p. 531. 1st Canon of Saint Athanasius the Great [Pedalion (= The Rudder), p. 760]. See the previous footnote. See the 51st Canon of the Holy Apostles; Canons 1, 4, 9, 10, 14 of the regional synod of Gangra; the 47th Canon of Saint Basil the Great [Pedalion (= The Rudder), p. 91, pp. 523–4, 526–7, 823].

44

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

“lawful”21 and “moderate.”22 At this point, we would like to remind that ecclesiastical blessing (hierologia) as a mandatory constituent type of marriage was adopted by the Byzantine state in 893, by the 89th Novel (or New Law) of the Byzantine emperor Leo VI (called the Wise or Philosopher: 9 September, 866– 11 May, 912).23 The wedding ceremony had a social dimension and, as happens nowadays, usually after the wedding a moderate feast would take place which would include a meal for the invited guests; however, unlike nowadays, there were specific restrictions (for example, it was deemed unsuitable/inappropriate to dance or leap at weddings).24 There also exist several other canonical regulations protecting the institution of marriage, most of them relating to other issues described below. At this point we would like to note that the Christian Church was established in the Greco-Roman world, where civil marriage was the only form of lawful marriage. Therefore, in Holy Canons the term “lawful marriage” may indicate not only religious marriage but also “civil marriage,” which was tolerated by the Church.25

Current situation Until 1982 the Greek Civil Code26 (article 1367) provided for only one type of marriage for Greek citizens, namely religious marriage. Since 1982, the Greek State established “civil marriage” alongside the religious one.27 This means that everyone who lives in Greece has a legal right since then (1982) to choose the type of wedding he/she wishes, i.e. either the Orthodox sacrament of marriage or the civil marriage. However, the Orthodox Church in Greece has objected strongly to this modification and does not approve of this type of marriage for its 4th Canon of Saint Gregory of Nyssa and 72nd Canon of the Ecumenical Council “in Trullo” [Pedalion (= The Rudder), p. 376 and 871]. 22 21th Canon of the regional synod at Gangra [Pedalion (= The Rudder), p. 531]. 23 D. J. Constantelos, “Practise of the Sacrament of matrimony according to the orthodox tradition,” The Jurist 31,4 (1971): 614–28 (624). 24 See the 53rd and 54th Canons of the regional synod in Laodicaea: “That Christians attending weddings must not waltz or dance, but must sup or dine in decent fashion, as becomes Christians”. C. 54: “That members of the Sacerdocy and Clerics must not witness spectacles at weddings or suppers, but, before the actors taking part in theatricals enter, they are to rise and leave” [Pedalion (= The Rudder), p. 573]. 25 It is true that the Church recognized the validity of marriages conducted according to civil law during the first four centuries (Patrick Viscuso, “An Orthodox perspective on marriage: Demetrios J. Constantelos,” in George P. Liacopulos, Church and Society: Orthodox Christian Perspectives, Past Experiences and Modern Challenges, (Boston-Massachusetts: Somerset Hall Press 2007), p. 307. To this point of view it must be added that by that time the Church had no other choice, as it had been developing in a state of persecution. 26 C. Taliadoros (trans.), Greek Civil Code, (Athens-Komotini: Sakkoulas 2000). 27 Article 1 of Law 1250/82 (Government Gazette of the Hellenic Republic, folio no. 46, Issue A, 7.4.1982). 21



The Christian Family according to the Sacred Canons of the Orthodox Church 45

members, because it is not in accordance with the dogmatic doctrine of marriage. Marriage is one of the sacraments of the Orthodox Church; thus, Orthodox Christians who wish to marry must do so in the Church, in order to be in sacramental communion with it. Therefore, the Orthodox Church in Greece does not acknowledge those who marry outside it and, if they do so, they may not serve as godparents at baptisms or as sponsors at weddings. Recent statistical data shows that the number of civil marriages has increased recently, that is, the proportion of civil marriages as a percentage of all marriages occurring in Greece between 1991 and 2001 has gradually increased at a rate of 9 percent (approximately one marriage in ten). More specifically, while the percentage of religious marriages in 1991 was 91.07 percent of the total, it gradually declined and in 2001 it was 82.21 percent. Likewise, there was an increase in the percentage of civil marriages from 8.93 percent in 1991 to 17.79 percent in 2001.28 As reported in a recent article (2008) in the daily press, the percentage of religious marriages in 2006 was 68 percent and that of civil marriages 32 percent,29 meaning that one citizen in three has opted for a civil marriage.

The issue of free cohabitation It is obvious that, by establishing Sacred Canons, the Church has exclusively approved of long monogamous relationships between a man and a woman in the context of the sacrament of marriage, considering all other forms of coexistence between them illegitimate. However, from the very beginning of its establishment and its appearance in the world, the Christian Church had to deal with another type of extramarital relationship between a man and a woman, the so called ‘concubinage’ (cohabitation). This type of cohabitation is unacceptable to the Orthodox Church.30 Greek Law 3719 from 200831 established the so-called According to a study by University Professor Penelope Agallopoulou entitled, “The institution of civil marriage in Greece. Statistical presentation of statistical data for the years 1991–2001,” in Επιθεώρηση Κοινωνικών Ερευνών 116, Α’ (2005), pp. 167–88 (176), on the basis of official statistical data provided by the National Statistical Service of Greece (renamed “Hellenic Statistical Authority” in 2010) for the years 1991–2001. 29 See an article by K. Tsouparopoulos in “Eleftherotypia” newspaper (online version, accessed 13 May, 2008), under the title: “΄Ολο και μεγαλύτερες παντρεύονται οι γυναίκες” (=Women marry more and more at an older age), (http://archive.enet.gr/online/online_text/c=112,dt=13.05.20 08,id=23393800). 30 17th Canon of the Holy Apostles; 3rd Canon of the First Ecumenical Council (325 AD); 3rd and 5th Canons of the Ecumenical Council “in Trullo”; 88th Canon of Saint Basil the Great [Pedalion (= The Rudder), p. 28, pp. 296–8, 847–8], etc. See Elena Giannakopoulou, “Η παλλακεία ως τύπος συμβίωσης. Ιστορικο-κανονική και συγκριτική θεώρηση”, Εκκλησιαστικός Φάρος 79 (2008): 117–97. 31 Government Gazette of the Hellenic Republic, folio no. 241, Issue Α, 26.11.2008, Chapter 1, Articles 1–13, under the title: “Reform for families; children; society, and other Regulations” (in Greek). 28

46

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

“Contract of free cohabitation” (commonly known worldwide as ‘the terminus technicus cohabitation agreement’). A cohabitation agreement is a form of legal arrangement between a heterosexual (as far as Greece is concerned) couple of adults who have chosen to live together without entering marriage.32 Here it should be added that, as stated in a decision of the Legal Council of the Greek State, persons that have signed a contract of such a type of cohabitation are not legally acknowledged as family (Decision 258/2010). According to the National Statistical Service of Greece, to this day only 104 couples have chosen this type of cohabitation.33

Number of allowed Orthodox marriages Originally, the Orthodox Church acknowledged only one marriage for its members. However, during the fourth (4th) century it came to tolerate “kat oikonomian” (flexibly) and under specific penances, a second and a third marriage exclusively by laymen.34 Until 692 bishops, priests, and deacons were allowed only one marriage,35 exclusively prior to36 their ordination.37 From 692 onwards a married priest may not be promoted to bishop.38 Furthermore, from the very beginning monks and consecrated virgins were absolutely prohibited from marrying.39 Since 1982 an Orthodox Greek citizen Article 1 of Law 3719/2008 (Government Gazette folio no. 241, Issue Α, 26.11.2008). http://www.nooz.gr/prosopa/den-perpatise-to-simfono-sumviosis 34 3rd Canon of the regional synod of Neocaesarea (315 ad); 1st Canon of the regional synod of Laodicaea, 4th, 41st, 50th, 80th and 87th Canons of Saint Basil the Great [Pedalion (= The Rudder), pp. 509, 552, 792, 820], etc. 35 5th Canon of the Holy Apostles; 17th and 35th Canons of the regional synod of Carthage (419 AD) [Pedalion (= The Rudder), pp. 7, 614, 629]. 36 The 10th Canon of the regional synod of Ancyra (314 AD) allowed an exception only for deacons not married before their ordination; however, should they declare that they intend to marry later, they are allowed to do so after their ordination [Pedalion (= The Rudder), p. 495]. On the other hand, the Ecumenical Council “in Trullo” adopted the 26th Canon of the Holy Apostles annulling the 10th Canon of Ancyra, definitely decreeing that “hencefore no Subdeacon, or Deacon or Presbyter at all, after the ordination bestowed upon him, has permission to contract a matrimonial relationship for himself”, and “if anyone wants to contract a legal marriage with a woman before being admitted to the Clergy as a Subdeacon, or a Deacon, or Presbyter previous to ordination, let him do so” [Pedalion (= The Rudder), p. 299]. 37 26th Canon of the Holy Apostles; 26th Canon of the Ecumenical Council “in Trullo.” 38 12th and 48th Canons of the Ecumenical Council “in Trullo” [Pedalion (= The Rudder), pp. 303 and 347]. See D. J. Constantelos, Marriage, sexuality & celibacy: a Greek Orthodox perspective, (Light and Life Pub. Co. 1975). J. Meyendorff, Marriage: an Orthodox perspective, (USA: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 3rd rev. edn. 1984), p. 65. Nevertheless, as regards the Orthodox Church of Greece, in case of a wife’s death, either divorce by consent or divorce due to a wife’s adultery, a priest is allowed to be ordained a bishop [See previous Holy Canons of the Ecumenical Council “in Trullo” in combination with article 18§1b of the Statutory Charter of the Orthodox Church of Greece (= Law 590/1977)]. 39 16th Canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council; 44th Canon of the Ecumenical Council “in Trullo” [Pedalion (= The Rudder), p. 261, 343], etc. 32 33



The Christian Family according to the Sacred Canons of the Orthodox Church 47

is allowed as many as three religious marriages or an unlimited number of civil marriages.

Digamy (=Second marriage) A second marriage after the termination of the first for acceptable reasons (that is, in case of death or divorce due to fornication; disappearance etc.) is deemed by the Sacred Canons as “digamy”.40 In the Greek legislation such a marriage is considered a second. “Bigamy” according to Greek Penal law is something different: it is a crime and relates to a person remarrying before the valid termination of his/her previous marriage.41

Conditions and impediments for a valid marriage As is generally understood within the Orthodox Church, marriage is considered a sacrament if both man and woman are baptized; are able and free to marry; concede freely to the marriage and are faced with no impediments (obstacles); and meet every other condition that the Church, through its Canon Law, deems necessary for a valid sacramental marriage. Furthermore, in the case of the Orthodox Church in Greece, conditions specified by the Greek legislation (Civil Code) must also be taken into consideration.

(Positive) Conditions/Preconditions In order for an Orthodox marriage to be valid, the following “positive” three conditions must apply: 1. Opposite sex: that is, a marriage must be contracted between two persons of the opposite sex.42 This requirement is still valid in the Greek legislation;43 2. Legal age: Holy Canons do not expressly mention the age the candidates must have reached in order to join in a marriage, because on this issue they follow the common law of the State. The Greek Civil Code (article 1350) has set the minimum age at 18 years for both man and woman, on condition 4th and 53rd Canons of Saint Basil the Great, 7th Canon of the regional synod of Neocaesarea, 3rd Canon of the Ecumenical Council “in Trullo” [Pedalion (= The Rudder), pp. 296, 512, 792, 826] etc. See also Evdokimov, pp. 185–6. 41 Article 356 of the Greek Penal Code. 42 4th Canon of Saint Gregory of Nyssa; 1st Canon of Saint Athanasius the Great; 53rd, 54th, 72nd and 87th of the Ecumenical Council “in Trullo” [Pedalion (= The Rudder), pp. 353–4, 376, 391, 758–60, 871–2], etc. 43 See articles 1390, 1465, 1466, etc., of the Greek Civil Code. See also: P. Christinakis, Family Law and equality of the two sexes (lecture notes). I. Orthodox religious marriage (Introduction, Engagement, Marriage, Divorce), (Athens 2003) (in Greek), pp. 94–5. 40

48

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

that they are capable of acting legally. The same article introduces an exception for the required minimum age: a marriage may be allowed by a court before a person has reached the age of 18 (but not under 16), “if marriage is required for a good reason.” This condition also applies to those who wish to contract a civil marriage; 3. Substantial priesthood of a clergyman performing the sacrament of marriage: A priest or bishop performing the sacrament of marriage must have received the priesthood in the context of Apostolic Succession.44

(Negative) Conditions-Impediments An Orthodox marriage cannot take place if one or more of the following impediments (obstacles) exists: 1. Disparity of worship/cult (of another religion). The New Testament expressly disapproves of marriage between a Christian and a non-believer or heathen (2nd Epistle to the Corinthians 6.14). Orthodox Canon Law repeats this prohibition but additionally sets out some conditions and exceptions. More specifically, according to Holy Canons,45 an Orthodox man or woman is not allowed to marry a person who is either a heretic, a heterodox or a “non-believer”, and/or who adheres to another religion (Jew, heathen).46 Two Sacred Canons, namely the 31st Canon of the regional synod of Laodicaea (between 343–81) and the 14th Canon of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (451), allowed for an exception on this matter; that is, a Christian was permitted to join in marriage with a heretic only if the heretic (or Jew or heathen) would promise to convert to the Orthodox faith, and for their children to receive the Orthodox baptism.47 Nevertheless, it was apparently not possible to force a person that promised to do so to keep his word, and it was perhaps for this reason that the Ecumenical Council “in Trullo” made a final decision prohibiting mixed marriages. According, that is, to the “akribeia” (= rigidity, precision)48 of the 72th Canon of the Ecumenical Council “in Trullo,” a marriage with a heretic is void (invalid) and must be dissolved; an Orthodox man is not permitted to marry a heterodox, a heretic or a non-Christian woman, and vice Here it is hardly necessary to explain that the term “priest” in Orthodox Canon Law always defines an ordained man who has received priesthood. 45 10th and 31st Canons of the regional synod of Laodicaea; 29th Canon of the regional synod of Carthage; 14th Canon of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon; 72nd Canon of the Ecumenical Council “in Trullo” [Pedalion (= The Rudder), pp. 276, 376, 555, 565, 621]. 46 See also P. Evdokimov and A. P. Gythiel, The sacrament of love: the nuptial mystery in the light of the Orthodox tradition, (USA: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985, 1995, 2001), p. 185. 47 Pedalion (= The Rudder), pp. 259 and 565. 48 See also the 10th and 31st Canons of the regional synod of Laodicea; the 29th Canon of the regional synod of Carthage; the 14th Canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon [Pedalion (= The Rudder), pp. 276, 555, 565, 621], etc. 44



The Christian Family according to the Sacred Canons of the Orthodox Church 49

versa. However, the same Canon includes an exception as regards the case of two persons who are not Christians49 but have contracted a “lawful marriage,” that is a “civil marriage,” subsequent to which one of them converts to the Orthodox faith. In such a case, they are allowed to remain together, if they so desire, as, according to the divine Apostle (1st Epistle to the Corinthians 7.14): “for the infidel husband is sanctified by the wife, and the infidel wife by the husband.”50 As regards this matter, the Orthodox Church in Greece allows mixed marriages by applying the canonical principle of economy (flexibility).51 On the other hand, until 1982, article 1353 of the Greek Civil Code prohibited marriage between a Christian and a person adhering to another religion. This article was abolished in 1982 and replaced by a new one (article 3 of Law 1250/1982). From then onwards any Greek citizen, including the Orthodox, was allowed to contract a civil marriage with a person adhering to another religion. 2. A pre-existing valid third marriage. Orthodox Canon law strictly and expressly forbids a fourth marriage.52 Until 1982, in agreement with Orthodox Canon Law and the Decree of Constantinopolitan Synod of 920, Greek legislation prohibited a fourth marriage (article 1355 of the Civil Code). This regulation was abolished in 1982 (by article 3 of Law 1250/1982). This means that a person can theoretically enter into an unlimited number of civil marriages; 3. Consanguinity. A marriage between blood relatives (at the level of lineal consanguinity to an unlimited degree and at the level of indirect line of consanguinity to the fourth degree), is absolutely forbidden not only by Sacred Canons53 but also by Greek legislation (articles 1356, 1463 of the Civil Code); 4. Affinity. Two persons related to each other by linear affinity54 in any degree, or indirectly to the third degree, are not permitted to marry.55 The same restrictions are also specified by Greek The Canon expressly refers to heretics (“heretical”) and to non believers (“unbelief ” i.e. infidels); with those must also undoubtedly be included those who adhere to another religion (Jews, heathen, etc.) [Pedalion (= The Rudder), p. 376]. See also: P. Evdokimov and A. P. Gythiel, The sacrament of love, p. 185. 50 72nd Canon of the Ecumenical Council “in Trullo” [Pedalion (= The Rudder), p. 376]. 51 http://www.ecclesia.gr/greek/holysynod/commitees/dogma/dogmatics–0005.htm. See also the short description of the conference which took place in 2009 in Athens under the title: “Mixed marriages. A problem for the Churches?”. Also: Archimandrite Gregory Papathomas, “Ανοικτός Εκκλησιαστικός Κοινοτισμός: Ανόμοιοι-μεικτοί γάμοι και Μεταστροφή ενηλίκων”, in idem: Κανονικά άμορφα (Δοκίμια κανονικής οικονομίας), (Κατερίνη: Επεκταση Publ. 2006), pp. 231–50. 52 Decree (better known as “Tome of Union”) of the Constantinopolitan Synod of AD 920 [G. Rhalles and M. Potles, Σύνταγμα τῶν θείων καὶ ἱερῶν Κανόνων, vol. 5 (repr., Athens: Grigoris 1992), pp. 3–10 (text in ancient Greek)]. 53 19th Canon of the Holy Apostles; 5th Canon of Saint Theophilus of Alexandria [Pedalion (= The Rudder), pp. 80 and 907] etc. 54 Affinity is a relationship which “arises from a valid marriage, and exists between a man and the blood relatives of the woman, and between the woman and the blood relatives of the man.” 55 23rd and 68th Canons of Saint Basil the Great; 11th Canon of Saint Timothy of Alexandria; 54th Canon of the Ecumenical Council “in Trullo” [Pedalion (= The Rudder), pp. 353, 810, 831, 895], etc. 49

50

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

legislation (article 1357 of the Civil Code); 5. Adoption. Adoptive relationships are considered blood relationships. Therefore, a marriage between an adopted parent and his adopted child is absolutely prohibited according not only to Orthodox Canon Law but also to Greek legislation (article 1360 of the Civil Code). 6. Spiritual relationship. A godparent is not allowed to marry the parent of the “godchild” or the godchild itself “since familiarity with respect to the spirit is superior to the association of bodies.” 56 From 1982 onwards the contract of a civil marriage between such persons is permitted (article 1361 of the Civil Code); 7. Sacred orders. Priests, deacons and subdeacons are prohibited from marrying after their ordination.57 The 16th Canon of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon expressly forbade virgins and monks to marry.58 Likewise, the 44th Canon of the Ecumenical Council “in Trullo” prohibited monks from marrying.59 From 1982 onwards Greek citizens, including priests and monks, are allowed to contract an unlimited number of civil marriages.

Relationship between husband and wife According to the Sacred Canons of the Orthodox Church, a family has only one head, one leader who makes decisions; this is the husband, who decides on every issue concerning his family. A woman is given to a man by God as “helper” of her husband,60 a fact contributing to their mutual physical and moral assistance. Lawful spouses “are no longer twain, but one flesh.” 61 Furthermore, husband and wife ought to be “sufficient judges” of themselves.62 According to blessed Paul (1st Epistle to the Corinthians 7.5), it is not fitting and proper for them to engage in bodily association and intercourse when indulging in prayer, while on Saturdays and Sundays only so if they are going to participate in the Holy Eucharist; this, of course, ought to be agreed upon by both parties.63 As 53rd Canon of the Ecumenical Council “in Trullo” [Pedalion (= The Rudder), p. 353]. 26th Canon of the Holy Apostles; 6th Canon of Saint Basil the Great; 15th Canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council; 6th Canon of the Ecumenical Council “in Trullo” [Pedalion (= The Rudder), pp. 38, 260, 299, 793]. See also P. Evdokimov and A.P. Gythiel, The sacrament of love, 185. 58 “If any virgin has dedicated herself to the Lord God, or any men likewise have become monks, let them not be permitted to engage in marriage. If, however, they be found to be doing this, let them be denied communion, and be excluded therefrom. But we have made it a rule that the local Bishop is to have control of kindliness in regard to the treatment of them” [Pedalion (= The Rudder), p. 261]. 59 “Any monk that is found guilty of the act of fornication, or of accepting a woman for the purpose of matrimony and with a view to living with her (as his wife), shall be compelled to suffer the penalty of undergoing the penances prescribed by the Canons” [Pedalion (= The Rudder), p. 348]. 60 “For only one helper was given to man by God” [Pedalion (= The Rudder), p. 871]. 61 87th Canon of Saint Basil the Great [Pedalion (= The Rudder), p. 843]. 62 3rd Canon of Saint Dionysius the Alexandrian [Pedalion (= The Rudder), p. 720]. 63 13th Canon of Timothy of Alexandria; See also the 1st Canon of the regional synod of Gangra [Pedalion (= The Rudder), pp. 897 and 523]. 56 57



The Christian Family according to the Sacred Canons of the Orthodox Church 51

stated in Greek legislation, from 1982 onwards man and woman, husband and wife, are “equal” and have the same rights.64 For instance, a wife can use her surname after the marriage but has the option of using her husband’s surname or of adding it to her own, if the husband agrees to it (article 1388 of the Civil Code). Spouses are required to contribute jointly to the needs of the family, each according to his or her abilities. Contribution depends on their personal work, income and property (article 1389 of the Civil Code).65

Restrictions for married clergy (subdeacons, deacons, priests) As stated in the 4th Canon of the regional synod of Carthage, bishops,66 presbyters and deacons “who handle sacred articles must” abstain from their wives67 at specific periods, in light of the 13th Canon of “in Trullo,” which expressly repeats the 4th Canon of Carthage.68 Otherwise, they shall be removed from ecclesiastical order.69

Relationship between parents and children Duty of parents towards their children. It is the place and duty of parents to provide not only for the bodily care of their children but also for their baptism and Christian education, their financial support, their successful marriage, etc.70 Parents deserting their infants or children, commit an ecclesiastical crime punished by the penance of temporary exclusion from Holy Communion.71 Law 1329/83 (Government Gazette of the Hellenic Republic, folio no. 25, Issue Α, 18–2–1983). S. E. Kounougeri-Manoledaki, Family Law I: Introduction, Betrothal, contract of marriage, relationship between the spouses, divorce, (Athens-Thessaloniki: Sakkoulas 2008), pp. 78–80 (in Greek). 66 Until 692, in light of the 5th Canon of the Holy Apostles and the 4th Canon of the regional synod of Carthage, a married (before the ordination) priest had the right to be ordained at the higher rank of a bishop. This was abolished in 691/692 by the Ecumenical Council “in Trullo” [12th and 48th Canons, Pedalion (= The Rudder), pp. 303 and 347]. 67 Pedalion (= The Rudder), p. 607. 68 “We are cognizant, though, that those who met in Carthage and made provision of decency in the life of ministers declared that Subdeacons and Deacons and Presbyters, busying themselves as they do with the sacred mysteries, according to their rules are obliged to practice temperance in connection with their helpmates, in order that we may likewise keep the injunction handed down through the Apostles, and continued from ancient times in force, well knowing that there is a proper season for everything, and especially for fasting and praying” [Pedalion (= The Rudder), pp. 305–6]. 69 See the previous footnote. 70 15th Canon of the regional synod of Gangra; 10th Canon of the regional synod of Laodicaea; 38th and 42nd Canons of Saint Basil the Great; 42nd, 72nd and 110th Canons of the regional synod of Carthage; 14th Canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council; 4th and 22nd Canons of the Seventh Ecumenical Council [Pedalion (= The Rudder), pp. 259, 432, 451–2, 528, 555, 629, 652, 688, 819, 821]. 71 15th Canon of the regional synod of Gangra; 33th Canon of Saint Basil, etc. [Pedalion (= The Rudder), p. 528, 817]. 64 65

52

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

According to Greek legislation, both parents have the same rights and obligations towards their children (article 1390 of the Civil Code). Neglect or exposure of an infant or child is considered a crime by the Greek Penal Law (article 306). b. Duty of children towards the parents. The sixteenth (16th) Holy Canon of the regional synod of Gangra (between 340–70) does not allow children “on the pretext of godliness” to abandon their parents “especially [if the parents are] faithful,” that is Christians, and it reminds them of their duty to honor them.72 The Byzantine Commentator, John Zonaras, correctly notes that the use of the word “especially” shows that the obligation is universal and concerns even parents who adhere to another faith.73 Greek legislation does not include similar regulations.

Termination of pregnancy (abortion) Sacred Canons protect the life of an unborn child and, accordingly, intended termination of an embryo’s life is considered a crime against the life of another human being.74 Greece was one of the last countries in Europe to legalize abortion – under specific preconditions – after long deliberations.75 Since 3 July 1986, abortions have been decriminalized and, under certain requirements, even allowed, depending on the age of the foetus and health of the pregnant woman. Recently, the Greek National Agency for Medicines has authorized the abortion pill (RU486), as prescribed by a doctor, and if used only within a hospital and taken until the fifth week of pregnancy in order to cause miscarriage. As far as the current situation in Greece is concerned, results are discouraging: with over two hundred thousand (200.000) abortions annually, Greece ranks first among European countries and third worldwide.76

Pedalion (= The Rudder), p. 528. G. Rhalles and M. Potles, Σύνταγμα τῶν θείων καὶ ἱερῶν Κανόνων, vol. 3, p. 112. 74 21st Canon of the regional synod of Ancyra; 2nd and 8th Canons of Saint Basil the Great; 91st Canon of the Ecumenical Council “in Trullo” [Pedalion (= The Rudder), pp. 501, 789, 795–6, 895]. 75 Government Gazette of the Hellenic Republic folio no. 86, issue A, 3.7.1986, which has been included in article 304 of the Greek Penal Code. 76 Alexandra Chalkias, “Abortions in Greece,” Greek  American Review, Mar. 2005: 24–8. However, a recent study conducted by the 2nd Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology of Aretaieion Hospital (which forms part of the Medical Faculty of the University of Athens) is quite encouraging: The Greek Society of Obstetrics and Gynaecology collected data demonstrating that abortion rates seem to be declining, a fact which coincides with the increased use of more effective methods of contraception [Salakos N., Bakalianou K., Gregoriou O., Iavazzo C., Paltoglou G., and Creatsas G., “Abortion rates and the role of family planning: a presentation of the Greek reality”, Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 35(4) 2008, pp. 279–83]. 72 73



The Christian Family according to the Sacred Canons of the Orthodox Church 53

Divorce Marriage is a sacrament, therefore the thirteenth (13th) Canon of the Ecumenical Council “in Trullo,” in accordance with the New Testament, declares the indissolubility of marriage: “Are you bound to a wife? Seek not to be loosed.” 77 According to Holy Canons, the only—expressly declared—acceptable cause for divorce is the commitment of the ecclesiastical crime of adultery.78 As far as modern Greek legislation is concerned, adultery has been considered a criminal offense almost since the establishment of the modern Greek state.79 However, since 1982 it has been decriminalized.80 Furthermore, in Greek legislation all forms of marriage, that is both religious and civil marriages, may be terminated by divorce only for one reason, termed as “a strong instability (disruption)” of the marriage. The meaning of this term is very wide, actually including very many reasons which theoretically may cause “a strong instability” of a marriage, thus providing legal reasons for a divorce (adultery, bigamy, absence or disappearance of the one spouse, etc.). Furthermore, since 2008, if spouses live apart continuously for at least two years, a disruption is deemed unquestionable and a claim for divorce may be submitted by either spouse.81 From a social perspective, it must be noted that, according to Statistical Data provided by the National Statistical Service of Greece (http: www.statistics.gr), the rate of divorces has shown an upward trend, so much so that a divorce rate of eight percent (8 per cent) in 1980 (8,000 divorces) climbed to twenty-four percent (24 per cent) in 2005 (13,500 divorces). This means that almost one in four marriages ends in divorce. According to research by the Institute for Mental and Sexual Health, approximately one in two marriages was expected to end in divorce by 2010. All these transformations are consistent with the general spirit of liberalization and modernization that has developed during the last 30 years within 5th Canon of the Holy Apostles declares that the “pretext of reverence” is not acceptable cause for a priest to be removed from his wife [Pedalion (= The Rudder), p. 7]. This Canon is also included in the 13th and 30th Canons of the Ecumenical Council “in Trullo” [Pedalion (= The Rudder), pp. 312 and 325]. See also: 48th Canon of the Holy Apostles; 9th, 21st, 77th Canons of Saint Basil the Great and 87th of the Ecumenical Council “in Trullo,” and the 102nd Canon of the regional synod of Carthage [Pedalion (= The Rudder), pp. 76, 391, 670, 797, 809, 835–6]. 78 9th and 21st Canons of Saint Basil the Great [Pedalion (= The Rudder), p. 797, 809] etc. 79 According to Article 286 of the Criminal Law of King Otto of Greece, which was in force until December 31, 1950, adultery was considered a misdemeanor. It remained so according to article 357 of the new Penal Code, which came in force on January 1st, 1951. 80 Article 6 of Law 1272/82 (Government Gazette of the Hellenic Republic, folio no. 97, Issue Α, 20.8.1982). 81 Government Gazette of the Hellenic Republic, folio no. 241, Issue Α, 26.11.2008, Chapter 2, Article 14. 77

54

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

Greek society.82 The “Special synodical committee for marriage, family, child protection and demographic issues” of the Orthodox Church in Greece is examining specific proposals on how to address these radical changes. To end on an optimistic note, the role of the Church is of a decisive importance: Parish priests should become active providing pastoral care in the form of informing couples wishing to marry and counseling them; also, trying to develop a personal relationship and communication with them. In addition to this, the Church should take advantage of modern technology (television, Internet, etc.) and use it for its own purposes, avoiding at the same time the danger of secularization. On the other hand, members of the Church should be more active, as has already been suggested at this conference.83 Suggestions offered at the conclusion of the second Conference (2004) of the above mentioned Committee84 need to be followed by all means.

See the detailed article of Stavropoulos: “Family and family life education between tradition and modernisation in contemporary Greece,” http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/stavropoulos_ familylife.html 83 S. the presented paper of Professor Thomas Knieps-Port le Roi. 84 http://www.ecclesia.gr/greek/holysynod/commitees/family/parousiasi_ga_oiko.html. A selected bibliography of 94 titles may also be found at the same webpage (http://www.ecclesia.gr/greek/ holysynod/commitees/family/f11.pdf). 82

4

Glimpses into the Cappadocian FourthCentury Familyby Gregory the Theologian Pablo Argárate

In times of family crisis, it is always rewarding to direct our view to ideals that may shed light in difficult times. Gregory of Nazianzus (330–c. 390) provides us, mainly in three of his orations (6,7,18) but also in his autobiographical poem De vita sua, with deep insights into the life of his own family. The context of them is the successive death of his brother, his sister, and eventually his father in the span of six years (368–74). On each of these occasions, he offers the surviving members of his family a funeral oration, where he reflects on the life of the deceased member but also of the entire family dynamics, including here his mother and himself, who is always in the background of his portraits, in dialogue with his family members. At first sight, an ideal Christian family. Gregory’s family clearly belongs to a provincial aristocracy, where wealth and education served towards social advancement. It is noteworthy within this dynamic the crucial role played by Christian women. As in the case of Basil’s family, where his grandmother and his sister, both Macrina, will have a decisive function in the orientation of the family, the same will happen with Gregory’s family. Here we have his grandmother, his mother, his sister and eventually his niece, who will be instrumental in bringing husbands and children into the Christian faith and deeply marking their characters. In all of the members of these families, very clearly in Gregory, there is a clear awareness of their aristocratic belonging, as well, and their function within the established society. As pointed out above, Gregory’s family does not fall behind the standards of Basil’s own family in Christian commitment. In this regard, they constitute in many aspects an ideal that can throw much light in times of crises. Beside the highly-relevant ascetical women of the family, we have three bishops (Gregory, his father and Gregory’s cousin Amphilocus), two saints (Gregory and his

56

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

brother Caesarios) and two high-profile theologians, which will strongly impact the development of the Trinitarian dogma (Gregory and Amphilocus). Gregory’s father, Gregory the Elder, was a bishop. Converted from a Judeopagan sect (the Hypsistarian), “[h]e sprang from a stock unrenowned, and not well suited for piety.”1 Being originally an “alien shoot”,2 he later became, moved into this by his wife, a pastor who leads his flock into Christian life, the “good shepherd.”3 [H]e at first strove without harshness to soften the habits of the people, both by words of pastoral knowledge, and by setting himself before them as an example, like a spiritual statue, polished into the beauty of all excellent conduct. He next, by constant meditation on the divine words, though a late student of such matters, gathered together so much wisdom within a short time that he was in no wise excelled by those who had spent the greatest toil upon them, and received this special grace from God, that he became the father and teacher of orthodoxy […] he was more pious than those who possessed rhetorical power, more skilled in rhetoric than those who were upright in mind; or rather, while he took the second place as an orator, he surpassed all in piety.4

Portrayed as a new Noah, he built the church within his own property. What else must we say of this great man of God, the true Divine, under the influence, in regard to these subjects, of the Holy Ghost, but that through his perception of these points, he, like the great Noah, the father of this second world, made this church to be called the new Jerusalem, and a second ark borne up upon the waters; since it both surmounted the deluge of souls, and the insults of the heretics, and excelled all others in reputation no less than it fell behind them in numbers; and has had the same fortune as the sacred Bethlehem, which can without contradiction be at once said to be a little city and the metropolis of the world, since it is the nurse and mother of Christ, Who both made and overcame the world.5 His character is presented by his son as being extremely meek, far from wrath and anger. He was so far advanced in self-control, that he became at once most beloved and most modest, two qualities difficult to combine.6

3 4 5 6 1 2

Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. XVIII, 5. Or. XVIII, 6 Or. VIII, 5 Or. XVIII, 16 Or. XVIII, 17. Or. XVIII, 6.



Glimpses into the Cappadocian Fourth-Century Family

57

A biblical man, Gregory refers to biblical characters such as Abraham, Noah, Moses or Samuel in order to depict him. For instance at the beginning of the funeral oration of his brother Caesarios, he states from their common father: He was well grafted out of the wild olive tree into the good one, and so far partook of its fatness as to be entrusted with the engrafting of others, and charged with the culture of souls, presiding in a manner becoming his high office over this people, like a second Aaron or Moses, bidden himself to draw near to God, and to convey the Divine Voice to the others who stand afar off; gentle, meek, calm in mien, fervent in spirit, a fine man in external appearance, but richer still in that which is out of sight.7

Gregory’s sister Gorgonia, the eldest of all three children, is portrayed in very high terms. First of all, he considers her to be the natural offspring of the virtues of her parents: From them Gorgonia derived both her existence and her reputation; they sowed in her the seeds of piety, they were the source of her fair life, and of her happy departure with better hopes.8

From the very outset she is presented as a wholly spiritual being: “Gorgonia’s native land was Jerusalem above.”9 Gregory will stress her sophrosyne and her ascetical life. After living married life with her husband Alypios, they both undertook an ascetical life. In doing this, Gorgonia united both kinds of life: In modesty she so greatly excelled, and so far surpassed, those of her own day, to say nothing of those of old time who have been illustrious for modesty, that, in regard to the two divisions of the life of all, that is, the married and the unmarried state, the latter being higher and more divine, though more difficult and dangerous, while the former is more humble and more safe, she was able to avoid the disadvantages of each, and to select and combine all that is best in both, namely, the elevation of the one and the security of the other, thus becoming modest without pride, blending the excellence of the married with that of the unmarried state, and proving that neither of them absolutely binds us to, or separates us from, God or the world (so that the one from its own nature must be utterly avoided, and the other altogether praised).10

By this depiction Gregory presents a new ideal realized in Gorgonia (and her husband). Or. VII, 3. Or. VIII, 6. 9 Or. VIII, 6. 10 Or. VIII, 8. 7 8

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

58

For though she had entered upon a carnal union, she was not therefore separated from the spirit, nor, because her husband was her head, did she ignore her first Head: but, performing those few ministrations due to the world and nature, according to the will of the law of the flesh, or rather of Him who gave to the flesh these laws, she consecrated herself entirely to God. But what is most excellent and honourable, she also won over her husband to her side, and made of him a good fellow-servant, instead of an unreasonable master. And not only so, but she further made the fruit of her body, her children and her children’s children, to be the fruit of her spirit, dedicating to God not her single soul, but the whole family and household, and making wedlock illustrious through her own acceptability in wedlock, and the fair harvest she had reaped thereby; presenting herself, as long as she lived, as an example to her offspring of all that was good, and when summoned hence, leaving her will behind her, as a silent exhortation to her house.11

In what will become a known topos, her ascetical strength is presented as transcending her gender. Who had a fuller knowledge of the things of God, both from the Divine oracles, and from her own understanding? But who was less ready to speak, confining herself within the due limits of women?12

In her life, she even surpassed men. Nay in this respect she was seen to surpass not only women, but the most devoted of men, by her intelligent chanting of the psalter, her converse with, and unfolding and apposite recollection of, the Divine oracles, her bending of her knees which had grown hard and almost taken root in the ground, her tears to cleanse her stains with contrite heart and spirit of lowliness, her prayer rising heavenward, her mind freed from wandering in rapture; in all these, or in any one of them, is there man or woman who can boast of having surpassed her? 13 O nature of woman overcoming that of man in the common struggle for salvation, and demonstrating that the distinction between male and female is one of body not of soul!14

Her asceticism and longing for the true life bring her very close to the image of Macrina depicted by his brother Gregory of Nyssa. “She longed for her dissolution, for indeed she had great boldness towards Him who called her, and 14 11 12 13

Or. VIII, 8. Or. VIII, 11. Or. VIIII, 13. Or. VIII, 14.



Glimpses into the Cappadocian Fourth-Century Family

59

preferred to be with Christ, beyond all things on earth.”15 Her death is introduced by Gregory in such terms: “Thus she was set free, or, it is better to say, taken to God, or flew away, or changed her abode, or anticipated by a little the departure of her body.”16 Different from the heretic converted to bishop or the wife turned into ascetic, Gregory’s brother, Caesarios, undertook a successful career that eventually led him to high positions at the court in the capital. Gregory was very close to his brother Caesarios and they undertook a great part of their education together. Caesarios continued, however, his studies in Alexandria, excelling in all kind of disciplines, and finally arriving in the capital of the empire, where he became one of the physicians of the emperor. Despite his high position he remained faithful to his Christian vocation. But, most important, neither by his fame, nor by the luxury which surrounded him, was his nobility of soul corrupted; for amidst his many claims to honor, he himself cared most for being, and being known to be, a Christian, and, compared with this, all other things were to him but trifling toys.17 In his inner existence he lived a philosophical life. Such was the philosophy of Caesarios, even at court: these were the ideas amidst which he lived and died, discovering and presenting to God, in the hidden man, a still deeper godliness than was publicly visible.18

He was even appreciated by emperor Julian, despite Caesarios being a Christian. Eventually, after a public dispute with the emperor, where he clearly upheld his faith, Caesarios resigned from his position and returned to Cappadocia. Later, being called back to the capital by the following emperors he accepted an important financial responsibility. He died after surviving the earthquake of Nicaea in 368 and having been baptized and renounced in-between to all properties. He was living in Bithynia, holding an office of no small importance from the Emperor, viz., the stewardship of his revenue, and care of the exchequer: for this had been assigned to him by the Emperor as a prelude to the highest offices. And when, a short time ago, the earthquake in Nicaea occurred, which is said to have been the most serious within the memory of man, overwhelming in a 18 15 16 17

Or. VIII, 19. Or. VIII, 21. Or. VII, 10. Or. VII, 11.

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

60

common destruction almost all the inhabitants and the beauty of the city, he alone, or with very few of the men of rank, survived the danger, being shielded by the very falling ruins in his incredible escape, and bearing slight traces of the peril; yet he allowed fear to lead him to a more important salvation, for he dedicated himself entirely to the Supreme Providence; he renounced the service of transitory things, and attached himself to another court.19

On his mother there is no explicit oration, although, as we will see, she was the closest to Gregory and to her he will dedicate extensive space in the three above-presented orations, especially the one pronounced after the death of his father (XVIII, 7–12, 21.30), but also in those dedicated to Caesarios (VII) and Gorgonia (VIII, 4–5). His mother was indeed the leading force of the family. She came from a pious family and was consecrated to God by virtue of her descent from a saintly family, and was possessed of piety as a necessary inheritance, not only for herself, but also for her children – being indeed a holy lump from a holy firstfruits.20

She is a new Sarah, “the mother of the free.”21 Gregory often states his father’s dependence upon his mother. She was the cause of “her husband’s perfection”22 and in regard to her children this is what Gregory states: Lovers of their children and of Christ as they both were, what is most extraordinary, they were far greater lovers of Christ than of their children: yea, even their one enjoyment of their children was that they should be acknowledged and named by Christ, and their one measure of their blessedness in their children was their virtue and close association with the Chief Good. Compassionate, sympathetic, snatching many a treasure from moths and robbers, and from the prince of this world, to transfer it from their sojourn here to the [true] habitation, laying up in store for their children the heavenly splendour as their greatest inheritance.23

His mother together with his father were the new Abraham and Sarah, from which Gregory, the new Isaac was born: Who is there who knows not the Abraham and Sarah of these our latter days, Gregory and Nonna his wife? For it is not well to omit the incitement to virtue of mentioning their names. He has been justified by faith, she has dwelt with him 21 22 23 19 20

Or. VII, 15. Or. VII, 4. Or. VIII, 4. Or. VII, 4. Or. VII, 4.



Glimpses into the Cappadocian Fourth-Century Family

61

who is faithful; he beyond all hope has been the father of many nations, she has spiritually travailed in their birth; he escaped from the bondage of his father’s gods, she is the daughter as well as the mother of the free; he went out from kindred and home for the sake of the land of promise, she was the occasion of his exile; for on this head alone I venture to claim for her an honour higher than that of Sarah; he set forth on so noble a pilgrimage, she readily shared with him in its toils; he gave himself to the Lord, she both called her husband lord and regarded him as such, and in part was thereby justified; whose was the promise, from whom, as far as in them lay, was born Isaac, and whose was the gift.24

The impact of Gregory’s mother on her husband can hardly be exaggerated. She was “his leader” and “his teacher,”25 or expressed in other words: This good shepherd was the result of his wife’s prayers and guidance, and it was from her that he learned his ideal of a good shepherd’s life. He generously fled from his idols, and afterwards even put demons to flight; he never consented to eat salt with idolaters: united together with a bond of one honour, of one mind, of one soul, concerned as much with virtue and fellowship with God as with the flesh; equal in length of life and hoary hairs, equal in prudence and brilliancy, rivals of each other, soaring beyond all the rest, possessed in few respects by the flesh, and translated in spirit, even before dissolution: possessing not the world, and yet possessing it, by at once despising and rightly valuing it: forsaking riches and yet being rich through their noble pursuits; rejecting things here, and purchasing instead the things yonder: possessed of a scanty remnant of this life, left over from their piety, but of an abundant and long life for which they have laboured. I will say but one word more about them: they have been rightly and fairly assigned, each to either sex; he is the ornament of men, she of women, and not only the ornament but the pattern of virtue.26

The ideal view of Gregory’s family is, however, called into question if we are allowed to read between the lines of the orations. First, conflict is present from the very outset. His parents’ marriage was a difficult one due to the different religions of both. Marrying into a Christian family, as Gregory the elder did, brought him at the beginning to be disowned by his own family. On her side, Gregory’s mother appears to have had no relation with his pagan in-laws. Abandoning the Hypsistarian sect, which shared pagan and Jewish beliefs and practices while upholding a monist theology, Gregory the Elder started a career that would lead him to the episcopate. His son points out, nevertheless, some Or. VIII, 4. Or. XVIII, 8. 26 Or. VIII, 5. 24 25

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

62

problems despite all his praises of the good shepherd. Unlike himself – and Gregory is always the main character in the background while portraying his family – his father was not at ease with speaking, and on occasions the son had to assist this lack of words: “He took the second place as an orator.”27 Even more problematic is another fact. It is true that Gregory praises his father’s doctrine: He became the father and teacher of orthodoxy […] He acknowledged One God worshipped in Trinity, and Three, Who are united in One Godhead; neither Sabellianising as to the One, nor Arianising as to the Three; either by contracting and so atheistically annihilating the Godhead, or by tearing It asunder by distinctions of unequal greatness or nature.28

However, he cannot avoid mentioning a huge problem that took place when the Elder signed a heretical creed, which led to a denunciation by monks of his dioceses. Gregory had to step in in order to solve this explosive conflict. Here is his presentation: To give a proof of what I say. When a tumult of the over-zealous part of the Church was raised against us, and we had been decoyed by a document and artful terms into association with evil, he alone was believed to have an unwounded mind, and a soul unstained by ink, even when he had been imposed upon in his simplicity, and failed from his guilelessness of soul to be on his guard against guile. He it was alone, or rather first of all, who by his zeal for piety reconciled to himself and the rest of the church the faction opposed to us, which was the last to leave us, the first to return, owing to both their reverence for the man and the purity of his doctrine, so that the serious storm in the churches was allayed, and the hurricane reduced to a breeze under the influence of his prayers and admonitions; while, if I may make a boastful remark, I was his partner in piety and activity, aiding him in every effort on behalf of what is good, accompanying and running beside him, and being permitted on this occasion to contribute a very great share of the toil. Here my account of these matters, which is a little premature, must come to an end.29

Gregory excuses his father’s mistake by attributing to him simplicity or naiveté. In any case, it was a serious mistake, which could only be solved by Gregory’s intervention. Often Gregory wants to point out how his father needed him, and needed his superiority towards him. We perceive here a difficult relationship. In this sense, even more important than this lack of theological soundness Or. XVIII, 16. Or. XVIII, 16. 29 Or. XVIII, 18. 27 28



Glimpses into the Cappadocian Fourth-Century Family

63

appears to be the Elder’s oppressive character, especially in regard to Gregory, despite the above-presented portrayal of his meek character. Gregory suffered his entire life under this abusive personality of his father. Coming to an end of the funeral oration for him, Gregory allows himself to state: Excuse me from the care both of the people which I have already resigned, and of that which for thy sake I have since accepted: and mayest thou guide and free from peril, as I earnestly entreat, the whole flock and all the clergy, whose father thou art said to be, but especially him who was overpowered by thy paternal and spiritual coercion, so that he may not entirely consider that act of tyranny obnoxious to blame.

Taking farewell of his deceased father, Gregory publicly confesses his tyranny over him. We discover here all the pain of a difficult relationship, which impacted the formation of Gregory’s highly difficult and ambivalent personality. As McGuckin points out, “When he found his freedom Gregory was almost an old man himself, and found it was more a loneliness than a liberation that he experienced.”30 While in this frame of mind (preparing to embrace a life of seclusion) I became involved in a serious crisis. My father was well aware of my thinking, nevertheless he exerted pressure to raise me to an auxiliary throne, so that he might constrain me by the bonds of the spirit, and pay me the highest honor in his power. Why he did so, I cannot say. Perhaps he was moved by fatherly affection, which when combined with power is a force to be reckoned with. Tyranny of this kind (I can find no other word for it, and may the Holy Spirit forgive me for feeling this way) so distressed me that I suddenly shook myself free of everyone – friends, parents, fatherland, and kin.31

Gorgonia, his elder sister, is portrayed with strong ascetical traits, a model to follow but in the meantime somebody far from Gregory’s (and also from her own husband’s) affection. On the other hand, this affection is very strong for Caesarios; warmth based on two different and opposed characters. Here Gregory struggles to make from a bon vivant an ascetic and a philosopher. Unlike Gregory, “who resolved to practise philosophy and adapt […] to the higher life”, Caesarios was “led by the desire of fame.”32 This earned him strong criticism, because he continued to serve Julian for some time. The amount of J. A. McGuckin, St. Gregory of Nazianzus. An Intellectual Biography (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2001), p. 20. Gregory of Nazianzus, De Vita Sua, vv. 337–49. PG 37, 1052–3. Cited by J. A. McGuckin, op. cit., 21. 32 Or. VII, 9. 30

31

64

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

possessions – and debts – that he left behind do not precisely support his philosophical life. While the outspoken younger brother made an astonishing career, Gregory remained and took care of his aged parents in Cappadocia, oppressed by his father’s strong personality and not being able to escape from this destiny until an advanced age. Only when he was 44 did his father pass away. Forced by both ordinations to priesthood and episcopate,33 he had to give up his own orientation and wishes. Of course there remained the love of his mother, to whom in front of his father’s grave he offers to take his father’s place, in an Oedipal relation: Do you want some one to care for you? Where is your Isaac, whom he left behind for you, to take his place in all respects? Ask of him small things, the support of his hand and service, and requite him with greater things, a mother’s blessing and prayers, and the consequent freedom. Are you vexed at being admonished? I praise you for it. For you have admonished many whom your long life has brought under your notice. What I have said can have no application to you, who are so truly wise; but let it be a general medicine of consolation for mourners, so that they may know that they are mortals following mortals to the grave.34

Gregory reflects on his family in key moments of his life, in their departures (“I have been preserved to pronounce panegyrics upon my brethren”35). Already in advanced age for that time this is a liberation – especially what his father regards – and in the meantime a growing lowliness. Through this study, often through Gregory’s own words, I have set out to show the ambivalence of human experience, in this case in relation to family. Ideal in one sense, highly problematic or even dysfunctional in many aspects, we discover a family perhaps not so far from ours as we initially thought. Fondness, love, warmth but also frustration and a great amount of suffering. Gregory’s lack of character – clearly shown in his problematic relation with his father – will become a hallmark. In difficult times, when things do not go in the way he wished, he will just flee, as he did after his forced ordination as a priest, later as a bishop, and eventually in the midst of the council of Constantinople. A sad, submissive attitude towards the often abusive behavior of his father, his warm closeness to his totally different brother, a cool admiration from a distance of his ascetic sister, and his harbor in his mother’s love, all this accompanied Gregory during his life. Sanctity is always a task and a challenge that does not exist outside or beyond crises. Cf. J. A. McGuckin, op. cit., p. 15. Or. XVIII, 43. 35 VIII, 23. 33 34

5

The Christian Family and its Problems in the Light of St. Basilthe Great’s Canons—a Pastoral Approach Viorel Sava

Prolegomena To commemorate 1,630 years since the passing into eternal life of St. Basil the Great, Archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, the Romanian Orthodox Church brings its tribute by declaring 2009 “a year of commemoration and homage to St. Basil the Great and all the Cappadocian Fathers.”1 In a special volume, the Romanian Patriarchate presents the synaxarion of all the known and recognized Cappadocian saints honored during the year,2 St. Basil the Great being the first of the total of 66 saints. In the Foreword to this volume, His Beatitude Daniel, Patriarch of the Romanian Church, emphasizes the miraculous way in which God’s gifts were made manifest in and through his chosen people: Prominent among the Cappadocian saints presented in this volume are the luminaries of the Church, the holy theologians, great teachers of the world and bishops such as St. Basil the Great, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Gregory of Nazianzus, the martyrs and confessors, as the Great Holy Martyr George, the victory-bearer, the St. Martyr Sava of Buzau, St. Martyr Mercury, or the venerable praying saints such as St. Theodosius the Great, the founder of monastic life, St. Sava the Pious and others. The attributes and the laudatory epithets that were individually attached to the names of these saints stand as unequivocal evidence for the virtues they possessed. For example, St. Basil is called “the great eye of the Church” that is “a guiding light.” St. Gregory of Nazianzus is celebrated as “the interpreter of the divine mysteries.” All these wonderful saints of the land of Cappadocia and of the universal Church reveal Holy Synod decision no. 7080/04, November, 2008. Sinaxarul sfinţilor capadocieni (Bucureşti: Cuvântul Vieţii Publishing House, 2009).

1 2

66

Christian Family and Contemporary Society the mystery of Christ’s Gospel which produced rays and images of light in the midst of a faithful people. In doing so, time was sanctified and links between generations and between nations were established.3

Among the Cappadocian saints, it is undoubtedly St. Basil who stands out in history owing to his personality and works. Thirty-six years ago, Romanian Patriarch Justin Moisescu, defying to a certain extent the cult of personality promoted and imposed by the communist regime, declared: Saint Basil the Great rightfully earned and acquired the appellative of “the Great” ever since the time of his life and is revered as such throughout Christendom to this day. Truly, he was great in his endeavours of preaching and defending the faith, was great in his monastic fervour, was great like a “father to orphans and a protector of widows, charitable with the poor and caring with the elderly, a role model for youth and an epitome of good deeds for monks,” as stated in an old church book. He sought the good works of all saints, “the humbleness of Moses, the ardour of Elijah, the witness of Peter and the theology of John. But above anyone else, St. Basil dedicated his life to those in need.”4

What His Beatitude Justin summarized in the preface to the tribute volume edited at that time5 has since been mirrored in the particularly extensive Romanian theological literature on the topic, in works, studies and articles whose highly varied themes6 attempt to capture in words St. Basil’s unrivalled personality. A recent addition has been the collection Studia Basiliana7 inaugurated in 2009 Ibid. p. 4. Iustin Moisescu, Foreword (to the first edition), Sfântul Vasile cel Mare. Închinare la 1630 de ani [St. Basil the Great. Tribute after 1630 years], Emilian Popescu and Adrian Marinescu (eds.), 1st vol., Col. Studia Basiliana, 1 (Bucureşti: Basilica Publishing House, 2009, p. 7). 5 Iustin Moisescu, Sfântul Vasile cel Mare. Închinare la 1600 de ani de la săvârşirea sa [A tribute on the 1600 years since his passing] (Bucureşti: Basilica Publishing House, 1980). 6 Adrian Marinescu, “Receptarea Sfântului Vasile cel Mare în literatura de specialitate din România (comentariu şi listă bibliografică)”. [The recognition of St. Basil the Great in specialist literature in Romania (comment and bibliographical list], Sfântul Vasile cel Mare. Închinare la 1630 de ani. [St. Basil the Great. Tribute after 1630 years], Emilian Popescu and Adrian Marinescu (eds), 2nd vol., Col. Studia Basiliana, 1 (Bucureşti: Basilica Publishing House, 2009, pp. 218–36). Ioana Zmeu, “Sfântul Vasile cel Mare în bibliografia românească” [St. Basil the Great in Romanian bibliography], Sfântul Vasile cel Mare. Închinare la 1630 de ani. [St. Basil the Great. Tribute after 1630 years], Emilian Popescu and Adrian Marinescu (eds.), 2nd vol., Col. Studia Basiliana, 1 (Bucureşti: Basilica Publishing House, 2009, pp. 429–54). Constantin I. Băjău, Patrologie. [Patrology], 2nd vol. (Craiova, 2000, pp. 139–47). Varlaam Merticariu, Spiritualitate şi istorie pe teritoriul României în epoca bizantină şi post bizantină (teză de doctorat) [Spirituality and history on the territory of Romania in the Byzantine and post-Byzantine era. Doctoral thesis]. Partea a II-a: Izvoare-InterpretăriBibliografie. [Part II: Sources-Interpretations-References] (Iaşi: Trinitas, 2003, pp. 130–67). 7 Sfântul Vasile cel Mare. Închinare la 1630 de ani. Actele Symposionului Comisiei Române de Istorie Eclesiastică, Bucureşti-Cernica, 2–3 octombrie 2008. [A tribute after 1630 years. Proceedings of the Symposium of the Romanian Church History Commission, Bucharest-Cernica, 2–3 October 2008], Emilian Popescu şi Mihai Ovidiu Căţoi (eds), Col. Studia Basiliana, 3 (Bucureşti: Basilica Publishing House, 2009). 3 4



The Christian Family and its Problems in the Light of St. Basil

67

by His Beatitude Daniel and published by Basilica, the Publishing House of the Romanian Patriarchate. The highly diverse portraits contained in this vast body of literature highlight unanimously the holiness of St. Basil’s life, his assiduousness, bounteousness, practical spirit, theological depth, pure and intense piety, steadfast keenness in defending and preaching the faith, and his parental care to those in suffering. “He remains to this very day,” His Beatitude Daniel says: […] a defender of the right faith in the Holy Trinity, a teacher of liturgical life, family life, monastic life and of the philanthropic work of the Church, and a theologian of the divine wisdom, expressed in the Scripture and in the created beings […] equally a remarkable preacher, righteous in his deeds, uniting prayer with the wisdom of words and with the wisdom of good deeds. Both the East and the West drew inspiration from his model of transposing the Gospel of love of Christ the Saviour, not into episodic and spontaneous mercy, but, rather, into systematic and constant charity, by means of the philanthropic work, the Basiliad, which became a model for the charitable work of all Christendom.8

In a study that presents in a masterly way the work and personality of St. Basil the Great, Romanian theologian the Rev. Professor Ioan C. Coman calls the archbishop of Caesarea “one of the most outstanding Christian and world figures,” “a theologian and a learned bishop,” “a chosen archbishop for his flock, who envelops it in abundant love and attention,” “the organising genius of eremitic monasticism,” “the creator, alongside St. Gregory the Theologian, of the literary genre of the Christian Philokalia,” endowed with “a strong missionary spirit.”9 Yet, these are expressions that capture only partly Basil’s legacy in history and the Book of Life. To all this must be added St. Basil the Great’s constant concern for order and discipline within the Church and his steady and determined fight against the disorder and sins that were eroding society during his era, in particular the most important component of society, the family. I shall approach, below, the sins that threaten family values, focusing on St. Basil the Great’s canonical works.

Daniel, Patriarch of the Romanian Orthodox Church, Sfântul Vasile cel Mare. Închinare la 1630 de ani. [St. Basil the Great. Tribute after 1630 years], Emilian Popescu and Adrian Marinescu (eds), 2nd vol., Col. Studia Basiliana, 1 (Bucureşti: Basilica Publishing House, 2009, p. 5). 9 Ioan G. Coman, “Personalitatea Sfântului Vasile cel Mare. Profil istoric şi spiritual” [The figure of St. Basil the Great. A historical and spiritual profile]. Sfântul Vasile cel Mare. Închinare la 1630 de ani. [St. Basil the Great. Tribute after 1630 years], Emilian Popescu and Adrian Marinescu (eds), 2nd vol., Col. Studia Basiliana, 1 (Bucureşti: Basilica Publishing House, 2009, pp. 51–2. 8

68

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

Canons of St. Basil the Great—a brief overview The official collection of canons accepted throughout Orthodoxy consists of canons by 13 Holy Fathers. These “canons” are in fact, letters and canonical responses given by the Fathers in different circumstances, which eventually acquired the status of canons, and their authority became generally binding. The first Church Father whose letters and responses were incorporated into the official collection of canons was St. Basil the Great. John Scholasticus, when he was a priest in Antioch (around 550 ce), seeking to impose a more practical structure on the collection of canons existing at that time (a collection compiled by an unknown author in 535 ce) reorganized the 360 previous titles into 50 titles, adding 68 titles by Saint Basil the Great (Ivan 2009: 272, note 9, vol. 1). Subsequently, at the beginning of the seventh century, to the first edition of 14 titles of the Nomocanons, other canons were added, which now belong to St. Basil’s canons. The official collection of canons at present contains 92 titles. The Cappadocian Father’s canons comprise the greatest number of canons in this collection. In 883, the Patriarch Photios re-edited the 14 titles of the Nomocanons.10 The epistles of St. Basil the Great11 testify to the Cappadocian archbishop’s involvement in a multitude of situations in the ecclesiastical life of the diocese, bishops, priests and faithful at the time. He addresses “prominent statesmen— kings and governors alike—intervening to eliminate or alleviate certain burdens on the Church and clergy, as well as assisting those in need or suffering from deprivation. He asks the great leaders of churches—in the East and the West—to mediate the settlement of issues that had caused—or were about to cause— disunity and schisms to the detriment of the Church. […] and those under his jurisdiction: bishops, chorbishops, priests, deacons, abbots or ordinary monks, with the same calm yet firm urging, to strengthen their faith, to grow fast in their discipline and to avoid anything that could damage Christian morality and the reputation of the Christian Church.”12 Iorgu D. Ivan, “Opera canonică a Sfântului Vasile cel Mare şi importanţa ei pentru viaţa Bisericii.” [The Canonical work of St. Basil the Great and its importance for the life of the Church]. Sfântul Vasile cel Mare. Închinare la 1630 de ani. [St. Basil the Great. Tribute after 1630 years], Emilian Popescu and Adrian Marinescu (eds), 1st vol., Col. Studia Basiliana, 1 (Bucureşti: Basilica Publishing House, 2009, p. 272, note 10). 11 St. Basil the Great, Corespondenţa (Epistole); Epistola 188 [Correspondence (Epistles); Epistle 188], translation, introduction, notes and index by Rev. Prof. Constantin Corniţescu, PhD, and Rev. Prof. Teodor Bodogae, PhD., Col. Părinţi şi Scriitori Bisericeşti, 12. (Bucureşti: Institutul Biblic şi de Misiune al Bisericii Ortodoxe Române Publishing House, 1988). 12 Iorgu D. Ivan, “Opera canonică a Sfântului Vasile cel Mare şi importanţa ei pentru viaţa Bisericii”. [The Canonical work of St. Basil the Great and its importance for the life of the Church]. Sfântul 10



The Christian Family and its Problems in the Light of St. Basil

69

Excerpts from these letters covering a broad range of topics were included in the official collection of Orthodox canons under the title Canons of the Church Fathers. The 92 canons derive from eight epistles of St. Basil the Great. Most of these canons, 86 to be precise, are extracted from the Epistles 188, 189, 217 and 236, addressed to Amphilochius of Iconium, who was seeking St. Basil the Great’s advice on administrative and disciplinary problems. The other canons were derived as follows: canon 87 from Epistle 160 addressed to Diodorus of Tarsus; canon 88 corresponds to Epistle 55 addressed to an elderly priest Gregory, who dwelt with an old woman that helped him in the household, a situation that was causing him distraction; canon 89 corresponds to Epistle 54, addressed to his chorbishops who ordained priests and deacons without a demonstrated need and failing to ask for his approval; canon 90, derived from Epistle 53, is addressed to his bishops and deals with the issue of simony, whereas canons 91 and 92 are drawn from the work On the Holy Spirit in which St. Basil deals with the Church’s doctrine on the third person of the Trinity.13

The Christian family and the sins that threaten its unity and moral integrity, explored in light of St. Basil the Great’s canons In the theological studies published so far in Romania, scholars have addressed various canonical and disciplinary aspects based on the canons of St. Basil the Great. Some of the topics explored in the literature include: questions concerning the Holy Tradition as the fundamental source of the faith, equally important to the Scriptures;14 receiving back into the Church heretics and schismatics, towards whom St. Basil showed a great degree of tolerance;15 or the relationship between the Church and the worldly authorities.16 Other papers examine the canons pertaining to the role of women in the Church and society,17

Vasile cel Mare. Închinare la 1630 de ani. [St. Basil the Great. Tribute after 1630 years], Emilian Popescu and Adrian Marinescu (eds), 1st vol., Col. Studia Basiliana, 1 (Bucureşti: Basilica Publishing House, 2009, p. 273). 13 Ibid., p. 274. 14 Ibid., pp. 279–82. 15 Ibid., pp. 282–4. 16 Ibid., pp. 285–6. 17 Vasile Axinia, “Dispoziţii canonice ale Sfântului Vasile cel Mare privind femeia creştină” [EN: Canonical instructions by St. Basil the Great regarding Christian women]. Sfântul Vasile cel Mare. Închinare la 1630 de ani. [St. Basil the Great. Tribute after 1630 years], Emilian Popescu and Adrian Marinescu (eds), 1st vol., Col. Studia Basiliana, 1 (Bucureşti: Basilica Publishing House, 2009, p. 287 et seq.).

70

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

in addition to issues related to virgins, married women, widows, deacons, nuns, and celibacy. Our intention is to highlight some aspects related to the most complicated situations encountered frequently by priests and ministers in their liturgical and pastoral ministry, especially problems pertaining to family situations, whose solutions are to be found in the canons of St. Basil the Great.

Marriage The serving clergy and theology specialists are well aware of the multitude of issues encountered in modern pastoral care. They include mixed marriages, divorce, trial marriages, concubinage, white marriages, domestic violence, and the marriages of clergy.18 These issues alone highlight the complexities constructed around marriage itself. Impedimente la căsătorie [Impediments to marriage], Ortodoxia (1972) 2, pp. 295–8. Marcel Ciucur, “Problema căsătoriilor mixte în lumina documentelor oficiale şi propunerile comisiilor interconfesionale în ultimul deceniu” [The issue of mixed marriages in light of the official documents and proposals by interdenominational committees in the last decade]. Mitropolia Moldovei şi Sucevei (1975) 1–2: 61–73. Ioan N. Floca, “Încetarea şi desfacerea căsătoriei civile şi a cununiei religioase sau divorţul în lumina învăţăturii creştine” [Ending and dissolution of civil marriage and religious matrimony or divorce according to Christian teaching]. Mitropolia Ardealului (1974) 10–12, pp. 572–9. Idem., “Căsătoriile mixte în lumina învăţăturii şi practicii ortodoxe” [Mixed marriages in lights of Orthodox teaching and practice]. Mitropolia Ardealului (1989) 5. Idem, “Impedimente la căsătorie şi cununie” [Impediments to marriage and matrimony]. Îndrumător Bisericesc (1989), XII, pp. 94–100. Idem, “Rudenia ca piedică (impediment) la căsătorie şi cununie” [Kinship as obstacle (impediment) to marriage and matrimony]. Studii Teologice (1992) 1–2. Iorgu Ivan, “Noi propuneri pentru uşurarea încheierii căsătoriilor mixte între Anglicani şi Romano-Catolici” [New proposals aimed at facilitating mixed marriages between Anglicans and Roman-Catholics]. Glasul Bisericii (1977), nr. 7–9, pp. 690–4. Nicolae Necula, “Săvârşim slujba cununiei soţilor divorţaţi şi recăsătoriţi?” [Do we celebrate the marriage service of divorced and re-marrying spouses?] Tradiţie şi înnoire în slujirea liturgică, 1st vol. (Galaţi: Episcopia Dunării de Jos Publishing House, 1996, pp. 216–19). Idem, “Ce este căsătoria albă şi dacă este îngăduită de Biserică?” [What is white marriage and is it allowed by the Church?]. Tradiţie şi înnoire în slujirea liturgică, 2nd vol. (Galaţi: Episcopia Dunării de Jos Publishing House, 2001, pp. 313–18, pp. 319–24, pp. 352–7, pp. 358–66). Idem, Care sunt implicaţiile pastorale şi ecumenice ale căsătoriilor mixte? [What are pastoral and ecumenical implications of mixed marriages?], Tradiţie şi înnoire în slujirea liturgică, 3rd vol. (Bucureşti: Institutul Biblic şi de Misiune al Bisericii Ortodoxe Române Publishing House, 2004, pp. 217–23). Idem, “Ce este divorţul religios şi ce importanţă are el în administrarea Tainei Cununiei?” [What is religious divorce and what is its importance in administering the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony], Tradiţie şi înnoire în slujirea liturgică 3rd vol. (Bucureşti: Institutul Biblic şi de Misiune al Bisericii Ortodoxe Române Publishing House, 2004, pp. 224–32). Jan Rusin, “Starea civilă a preoţilor şi diaconilor după sfintele canoane” [The marital status of priests and deacons according to the holy canons]. Studii Teologice (1973), 5–6, pp. 387–98. Viorel Sava, “Taina Nunţii – aspecte liturgice, duhovniceşti şi pastoral-misionare” [The Sacrament of Marriage – liturgical, spiritual and pastoral-missionary aspects]. Teologie şi Viaţă (1994), 11–12, pp. 44–51. Idem, “A doua nuntă – precizări liturgice şi canonice.” În Biserica Slavei Tale, I [The second marriage – liturgical and canonical notes. In the Church of Your Glory]. (Iaşi: Erota Publishing House, 2003, pp. 214–223). Idem, “Taina Căsătoriei şi tradiţia romano-catolică – privire specială asupra reformei liturgice a Conciliului II Vatican”. Sfintele Taine în tradiţia liturgică romano-catolică – prezentare şi evaluare din perspectivă ortodoxă [The Sacrament of Marriage and the Roman-Catholic tradition – a special focus on liturgical reform after the Vatican II Council]. (Iaşi: Performantica Publishing House,

18



The Christian Family and its Problems in the Light of St. Basil

71

Following this theme and its implications, one is first bound to notice Canon 38, which stipulates that a virgin ought to have the consent of her father when she wants to marry. The absence of this consent is equated with the sin of fornication. If such agreement is granted subsequent to the marriage, the person is excluded for three years from Holy Communion: “virgins who without their father’s consent followed men (i.e. married them), commit adultery, yet if they reconcile with their parents by seeking their agreement, it appears that the act itself is forgiven. Yet, they will not immediately be permitted to receive Holy Communion, but will instead be under penance for three years.”19 However, this canonical provision reiterates a prescription of the ancient Roman Law “that the legal marriage (justum matrimonium) could conclude, inter alia, only if agreed upon by the elders: parents, guardians, masters,”20 otherwise the marriage was not lawful. St. Basil the Great makes the same point, stressing the strong natural link between parents and children, and the pre-eminence of parental authority, especially the father’s, over children, particularly girls. This issue was also addressed in canon 22, in the broader context of expressing the free acceptance of marriage.21 Canons 40 and 42 by the same Holy Father are even more explicit in examining the distinction between the cases in which the consent of parents (or masters for slaves) exists, and situations when it was not granted (Canon 40: “A woman who is in defiance of her lord yields herself to another man is guilty of fornication. But she who thereafter contracts a public marriage becomes a wedded wife. So that the first case is to be considered fornication, the second, matrimony”; Canon 42: “A widow being at her own discretion, may marry to whom she will”).22 The principle highlighted by these canons is that the validity of a sacramental act is dependent upon meeting all conditions imposed by committing or accepting the act. Otherwise, the sacramental act is invalidated. In this instance, the failure to meet the prerequisite is treated as fornication.

pp. 149–88). Liviu Stan, “Concepţia canonică a Sfinţilor Trei Ierarhi” [The canonical thinking of the Holy Three Hierarchs]. Mitropolia Olteniei (1966), 1–2, pp. 9–15. Idem, “Căsătoriile mixte şi ultimele măsuri luate de Vatican în privinţa lor” [Mixed marriages and the latest measures taken by the Vatican on the subject]. Studii Teologice (1968), 7–8, pp. 487–97. 19 Nicodim Milaş, Canoanele Bisericii Ortodoxe însoţite de comentarii [The Canons of the Orthodox Church, accompanied by comments] trans. Prof. Nicolae Popovici şi Uros Kovincici, 2nd vol., 2nd part (Arad: Tipografia Diecezană Publishing House,1936, p. 97). 20 Ibid., p. 97. Vasile Gavrilă, Cununia – viaţa întru Împărăţie [Marriage – life for the Kingdom]. (Bucureşti: Fundaţia “Tradiţia Românească,” Publishing House 2004, pp. 30ff.). 21 Nicodim Milaş, Canoanele Bisericii Ortodoxe însoţite de comentarii [The Canons of the Orthodox Church, accompanied by comments] trans. Prof. Nicolae Popovici şi Uros Kovincici, 2nd vol., 2nd part (Arad: Tipografia Diecezană,1936, p. 80). 22 Ibid., pp. 98 and 101.

72

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

Clergy and the sin of fornication Another situation covered by Canon 6 is regarded as fornication: “Let it not be counted a marriage, when one belonging to the canon commits fornication, but let them be forced to part, for this is needed to strengthen the Church and heretics will not find any fault against us”.23 The canon applies to clergymen, monks and nuns who have fallen into the sin of fornication and consequently lost their clerical or monastic status. They assumed that they could live with people that had sinned and because of whom they were deprived of their previous status. St. Basil takes a stand and claims that such relationships must end. St. Basil’s motivation is twofold: the desire to strengthen discipline within the Church and to protect the Church’s image against attacks from heretics. In other words, this canon focuses on an internal, canonical and disciplinary objective and an external one, pastoral and missionary.

Premarital intimacy Is a ‘fashionable’ practice nowadays. The motivations and reasons behind it are manifold: the bodily urge that comes with age; an environment that often persistently promotes relationships as being normal; insufficient and cursory religious education; the conviction that such practices are required to express and maintain one’s love; the fear of failure because of abstinence; biological and health needs; claims such as: “We are getting married anyway”; testing the partner’s faithfulness, etc. All these reasons are claimed to justify sins and exonerate the sinners. St. Basil is adamant regarding this issue, which is also a canonical problem of the present-day younger generation: “fornication is not marriage, and not even the beginning of marriage; therefore, it would be beneficial for those united by fornication to separate. Yet if they still desire to marry, then they ought to repent, and thereafter be allowed to live together, lest something worse may happen.”24 A few ideas surface clearly from the present canon. First, the adamant position of the lawmaker towards cohabitation of a man and a woman before marriage. It cannot be considered the beginning of matrimony, that is, an anticipation of what is to happen, and, moreover, cannot be considered marriage per se. St. Basil goes further and argues that such a relationship should be brought to an end for good. As a result, it can be inferred that St. Basil’s attitude towards Ibid., p. 57. Ibid., pp. 84–5.

23 24



The Christian Family and its Problems in the Light of St. Basil

73

this sin is radical. This is the stance of a responsible legislator. However, his discourse completely changes when he faces a person who has sinned. He takes on an essentially fatherly and pastoral care attitude. In this light, he reassesses his prescription in terms of “lest something worse should happen, then consent to their living together is to be granted.” The expression “something bad” has many meanings. One interpretation reads: “Lest, he says (Zonarea), after having been separated, they may begin again to furtively meet and sin, or the woman being forced to marry someone else, and in doing so to commit adultery, or ultimately, to avoid suicide when these two see that they are prevented by force to benefit from their love.”25 Another fourth-century Church Father, St. John Chrysostom, while referring to the duty of young people to remain chaste, argues that the beauty of chastity lies in the fact that it combines the love between two young people and draws to them God’s mercy and blessing: Or do you think the fact of a virgin youth and a virgin maid being united is a trifling contribution to their marriage? It is no trifle, not only for the virtue of the youth but for the maiden’s also. Will not then the charm of their love be wholly pure? Above all, will not God then be the more gracious and fill that marriage with countless blessings, when they come together according to His ordinances? And He makes the youth remember his love always. And if he is held fast in this affection, he will spurn every other woman.”26

Consanguineous marriage between close blood relatives In a few canons, namely canons 23, 68, 76 and 87, St. Basil approaches the old but ever current issue of a close consanguinity of blood relatives as an impediment to marriage (see note 18). The last of these canons, i.e. canon 87, is actually Epistle 160 addressed to Diodorus of Tarsus,27 written in 373 or 374. The above-mentioned canons argue that practices such as the marriage with two sisters or two brothers or brother’s wife needs to be abolished (Can. 23). The issue is revisited in Canon 68, which specifies that the penalty is the same as that Ibid., p. 25. St. John Chrysostom, “Cuvânt despre cum se cade să-şi crească părinţii copiii.” Sfaturi pentru o educaţie ortodoxă a copiilor de azi [Words on how parents ought to raise their children nowdays. Advice for an Orthodox education of children today]. (Sibiu: Deisis Publishing House, 2000, p. 133). 27 St. Basil the Great, Corespondenţa (Epistole); Epistola 188 [Correspondence (Epistles); Epistle 188], translation, introduction, notes and index by Constantin Corniţescu and Teodor Bodogae, Col. Părinţi şi Scriitori Bisericeşti, 12. (Bucureşti: Institutul Biblic şi de Misiune al Bisericii Ortodoxe Române Publishing House, 1988, pp. 347–51). 25 26

74

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

for committing adultery.28 The Trullo Canon 54 elaborates what St. Basil specifically and clearly meant. Here is the text of this canon: “Thou shalt not permit the marriage of a son of a brother to the daughter of a brother; nor with a daughter and her mother shall there be the marriage of a son and his father; neither a mother and a daughter with two brothers; nor brothers with two sisters. But should anything of this sort have been done, together with separation, penance shall be done for seven years.”29 Canon 87, wherein St. Basil the Great elaborates on the concise remarks made in Canons 23, 68 and 76, is a response to a letter received by Diodorus of Tarsus and brought to St. Basil the Great’s attention, which said that it was allowed that a man, after the death of his wife, could marry the wife’s sister because there is no canonical impediment.30 St. Basil, while looking for scriptural, doctrinal, moral, and canonical-disciplinary evidence, shows that such marriage is wrong. St. Basil’s response has achieved canonically legitimate status throughout the Eastern Church.

Second marriage of clergy In Canon 12, St. Basil the Great, reiterating the stipulations of apostolic Canon 17, states that re-married clergymen are to be completely barred from priesthood. The commentary of this canon states that a bishop who dares to ordain a re-married candidate is to be deposed.31 Whilst the second marriage of clergy is expressly forbidden, the second marriage of laity is viewed as a concession towards human nature. However, the position becomes uncompromising when the question of a third marriage is raised. St. Basil the Great considers that those who marry for the third time are not worthy to be called human beings, regardless of their gender.32 (Canons 4 and 50). A third marriage is not called marriage, but “polygamy” or, rather,

Nicodim Milaş, Canoanele Bisericii Ortodoxe însoţite de comentarii [The Canons of the Orthodox Church, accompanied by comments] trans. Nicolae Popovici şi Uros Kovincici, 2nd vol., 2nd part (Arad: Tipografia Diecezană Publishing House,1936, p. 82, p. 115). 29 Ioan N. Floca, Canoanele Bisericii Ortodoxe. Note şi comentarii [The Canons of the Orthodox Church. Notes and comments]. (Bucureşti, 1991, p. 131). 30 Nicodim Milaş, Canoanele Bisericii Ortodoxe însoţite de comentarii [The Canons of the Orthodox Church, accompanied by comments] trans. Nicolae Popovici şi Uros Kovincici, 2nd vol., 2nd part (Arad: Tipografia Diecezană Publishing House,1936, pp. 129–30). 31 Ibid., p. 68. 32 Ibid., pp. 52–3, p. 107. St. Basil the Great, Corespondenţa (Epistole); Epistola 188 [Correspondence (Epistles); Epistle 188], translation, introduction, notes and index by Constantin Corniţescu and Teodor Bodogae, Col. Părinţi şi Scriitori Bisericeşti, 12. (Bucureşti: Institutul Biblic şi de Misiune al Bisericii Ortodoxe Române Publishing House, 1988, p. 377. 28



The Christian Family and its Problems in the Light of St. Basil

75

“fornication.” The harshness of the canon varies. Those who marry a second time are to be excluded from receiving Communion for a period of one to two years, while those who marry a third time for three years, or even four, yet they are not to be totally excluded from the Church who “show some fruit of repentance.” Although in the case of a third marriage there is “no law” as stated in St. Basil’s Canon 50 (quoted above), the same canon is surprising due to the considerate pastoral care shown. St. Basil declares: “We look on third marriages as disgraceful to the Church, but do not absolutely condemn them, as being better than a vague fornication.”

The issue of the third and even the fourth marriage This was revisited during the time of Byzantine Emperor Leo the Philosopher, who married three times within a very short period when his wives passed away. The conflict between the Emperor and Patriarch Nicholas I on the subject triggered great divisions within the Church, tensions between State and Church, and brought a great deal of sorrow to the Patriarch. Only the council edicts of the Synod summoned by Patriarch Nicholas I during the time of Emperors Constantine VII and Roman I, in 920, and collected in the Tomos of the Synod, eventually appeased the spirits and reconciled the imperial authority with that of the Church. The second canon of the seven adopted by the council set forth the conditions in which the third marriage can be granted33 [comment on the canon of St. Basil 4].

Dissolution of marriage (divorce) This issue is also examined in St. Basil the Great’s canons. Canon 9 brings a new and totally atypical view, not easily accepted in fourth-century mentality. He says: “God’s commandment that no one is permitted to dissolve a marriage except on grounds of adultery (Matthew 5.32), is right and fitting for both men and women.”34 St. Basil shows that the custom is quite different. From pre-Christian times until his time, the norms pertaining to divorce were strictly applied for women, while men were afforded a great deal of indulgence and understanding. This custom, well established in the collective mentality of the era, is plainly disapproved of by St. Basil. The terms in which St. Basil treats the Nicodim Milaş, Canoanele Bisericii Ortodoxe însoţite de comentarii [The Canons of the Orthodox Church, accompanied by comments] trans. Nicolae Popovici şi Uros Kovincici, 2nd vol., 2nd part (Arad: Tipografia Diecezană Publishing House,1936, pp. 54–5). 34 Ibid., p. 60. 33

76

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

case reveals in fact St. Basil’s position towards women, pleading for equal rights for women, a principle grounded in Revelation and advocated as such by the Church.35 The points made in Canon 9 are reinforced by the text of Canon 77 where the adulterous husband is no longer treated from a privileged stand as was the practice in that time. Thus, “he that divorces his wife, and marries another, is an adulterer; and according to the canons of the Fathers, he shall be a mourner one year, a hearer two years, a prostrator three years, a co-stander one year, if they repent with tears.”36 St. Basil’s position is openly against a certain social view, which entitled only men by giving them powers over women. Moreover, this practice favoured domestic abuse to the extent of afflicting adversely social moral standards and the family’s cohesion.

Incest In Canon 75, St. Basil the Great deals with another serious problem which has been sanctioned throughout history, but still persists. This issue, old and new, is incest. St. Basil, in Canon 75, forbids one who commits this sin to enter the house of the Lord until he stops committing the sin; afterwards, for three years he shall be a “mourner,” standing at the entrance to the church and asking all believers to pray for him/her; next, for three years, he shall be a “hearer,” allowed to participate only in the first part of the Liturgy, listening to biblical readings and the sermon; for another three-year period he shall be a “prostrator,” participating in the Divine Liturgy and required to remain on his knees throughout the service. After a ten-year penance, and only when repentance fruit, the sinner will be able to participate in the service together with the faithful. However, his/her gifts of bread and wine for the Eucharist are to be accepted only after another two years, when he/she will be able to fully participate by bringing gifts and partaking of Holy Communion.37 The long and harsh canon not only shows that the process of moral healing is an arduous one, demanding extensive and extended effort, but also that the canon itself serves a pedagogical purpose, warning other believers, witnesses to the incestuous penitents. In Canon 67, St. Basil reckons the gravity of this sin to be as great as for murder.

Ibid., p. 64. Ibid., pp. 120–1. 37 Ibid., pp. 119–20. 35 36



The Christian Family and its Problems in the Light of St. Basil

77

Polygamy Considered by Church Fathers as a “feral deed,” that is, a fall not only from divine grace but also from human dignity, this act has two meanings according to St. Basil the Great: the simultaneous marriage to more than one woman, and subsequent marriages. This sin is deplored in Canon 80.38 As we have already stressed while presenting Canons 4 and 50, a second marriage is allowed only after careful consideration, whereas a third marriage, regarded as impurity in the Church, is offered in extraordinary circumstances only because “it was more reasonable than vague fornication.”39

Concluding remarks We have explored some issues regarding marriage and practices that afflict family life as they are reflected in the canons of St. Basil the Great. As pointed out in the introduction, the work of St. Basil the Great covered all aspects of social and religious life. From the canons, however, we clearly discern his steady concern with moral life in general, his never-ending struggle against sin, and his pastoral care for the moral integrity of the Christian family. His entire endeavor is a reflection, essentially, of his own early education and piety as a child, his steadfast love for God, and his tireless diligence in the cultivation of Christian virtues. Such education could only have been acquired in the family in which he was born and raised, a family that is remarkable by the number of saints it produced. Thus, his concern and care for families, and consequently the struggle against sins that affect them, derive unsurprisingly from the education received in his parents’ home. The novelty here lies in his responsible embrace of the duty of care towards the entire Christian family as a shepherd of souls. As we examine the canons of St. Basil the Great, especially those relating to marriage and the sins that face and affect the institution of marriage, several issues stand out in particular, as summarized below. First, we emphasize that St. Basil’s canonical stipulations are not merely disciplinary rules, restrictive in nature, which punish the sin in order to promote virtue, but are in fact theological statements, concise theological treatises on certain topics, if we consider the contents of the epistles they were derived from. St. Basil the Great does not merely demonstrate what is good and what Ibid., p. 122. Ibid., p. 122.

38 39

78

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

is evil, or how to promote the good and to punish evil, he also illuminates and argues on scriptural and theological grounds. Indeed, his entire argument rests on the authority of the Holy Scripture, the experience of Church Fathers and on the canonical practice or custom. In other words, he interprets and applies the scriptural text, the Fathers’ experience and local practices in the context of his era and of his own ministry. Secondly, it is worth noting St. Basil’s constant referencing of the Church Fathers. This is the expression of a deep awareness of the communion in faith, prayer and discipline with the Church. His rule is the rule of Church Fathers. He is not a singulariter in mundo innovator, but rather one who seeks to highlight and expand on the experience of the past, serving as a bridge between predecessors and disciples. Thirdly, we note the harmonious principle of merging accuracy with divine economy. When confronted with sin and disorder, he is sober and virulent, whereas, when he faces the sinner, he is promptly gentle and pastoral. In Canon 74 he declares that the bishop, who has the power of binding and releasing a penitent, can reduce the penance period provided he or she has proven to be an earnest penitent.40 His pastoral and parental attitude takes into consideration not only the one who needs to be restored and healed but also the one who helps him to restore his moral integrity and to be healed. By way of conclusion, it must be said that the solutions to the problems that St. Basil confronted, which are neither few nor unrelated to those confronting a Christian family today, are still relevant to the present day. St. Basil’s canons are of great help to those who need to come up with answers to old issues in a new context.

Ibid., p. 119.

40

Part Two

6

The Plan of God for Marriage and the Family: A Roman-Catholic Perspective José R. Villar

The image of the God who is love The Catholic faith gives an understanding of the truth concerning the great value of marriage and the family and their deepest meaning.1 God created man in His own image and likeness.2 Calling him to existence through love, he called him at the same time for love. God is love.3 He lives in himself, a mystery of personal loving communion. Creating the human race in his own image, God inscribed in the humanity of man and woman the vocation, and thus the capacity and responsibility, of love and communion.4 Love is therefore the vocation of every human being. “Man cannot live without love. He remains a being that is incomprehensible for himself, his life is senseless, if love is not revealed to him, if he does not encounter love, if he does not experience it and make it his own, if he does not participate intimately in it.”5 As an incarnate spirit, man is called to love in his unified totality. Love includes the human body, and the body is made a sharer in spiritual love.

Wrenn, M. J., (ed.), Pope John Paul II and the family: the text with a theological and catechetical commentary with discussion questions on the Apostolic exhortation of Pope John Paul II on the role of the Christian family in the modern world (Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1983). Conner, P. M., Married in Friendship: Familiaris consortio – Digest and Commentary: friendship – key to marital spirituality (London: Sheed and Ward, 1987). Lawler, M. G. and W. P. Roberts (eds) Christian Marriage and Family. Contemporary theological and pastoral perspectives (Collegeville: Minn. Liturgical Press, 1996). Hahn, S., First comes love: finding your family in the Church and the Trinity (New York: Doubleday, 2002). 2 Cf. Gen. 1.26. 3 Cf. 1 Jn 4.8. 4 Cf. Council of Vatican II, Past. Const. Gaudium et spes, n. 12. 5 John Paul II, Encyclical Redemptor hominis (4-III–1975), n. 10; cf. John Paul II, Familiaris consortio (22-XI–1981), n. 11. 1

82

Christian Family and Contemporary Society Love is a gift of God, nourished by and expressed in the encounter of man and woman. Love is thus a positive force directed towards their growth in maturity as persons. In the plan of life which represents each person’s vocation, love is also a precious source for the self-giving which all men and women are called to make for their own self-realization and happiness. In fact, man is called to love as an incarnate spirit, that is soul and body in the unity of the person. Human love hence embraces the body, and the body also expresses spiritual love.6

Sexuality is by no means something purely biological. Rather, it concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and a woman commit themselves totally to one another. Sexuality is the sign and fruit of a total personal self-giving, in which the whole person is present, including the temporal dimension. The “place” in which this self-giving in its whole truth is made possible is marriage, the covenant of conjugal love, whereby man and woman accept the intimate community of life and love. The institution of marriage is an interior requirement of the covenant of conjugal love, not an undue interference by society or authority, nor the extrinsic imposition of a form. The communion of love between God and human beings finds expression in the marriage covenant between a man and a woman. The central word of Revelation, “God loves his people,” is proclaimed through the concrete word whereby a man and a woman express their conjugal love. Their bond of love becomes the image and the symbol of the covenant which unites God and his people.7 The infidelity of Israel does not destroy the eternal fidelity of the Lord, and therefore the ever faithful love of God is put forward as the model of the faithful love which should exist between man and woman.8 The communion between God and his people finds its fulfillment in Jesus Christ, the Bridegroom who loves and gives himself as the Savior of humanity, uniting it to himself as his Body. He reveals the original truth of marriage. This revelation reaches its fullness in the gift of love which the Word of God makes to humanity in assuming a human nature, and in the sacrifice which Jesus Christ makes of himself on the Cross for his bride, the Church. In this sacrifice there is

Pontifical Council for the Family, The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality (8-XII–1995), n. 3. Cf. Hos. 2.21; Jer. 6.13; Isa. 54; cf. John Paul II, Exhort. apost. Familiaris consortio (22-XI–1981), n. 11. 8 Cf. Hos. 3; cf. John Paul II, Exhort. apost. Familiaris consortio (22-XI–1981), n. 12. 6 7



The Plan of God for Marriage and the Family: A Roman-Catholic Perspective 83

revealed that plan which God has imprinted on the nature of man and woman since their creation.9

Marriage as a real symbol of the event of salvation The marriage of baptized persons becomes a real symbol of that new and eternal covenant sanctioned in the blood of Christ. Marriage is the real representation, by means of the sacramental sign, of the very relationship of Christ with the Church. The Catholic Church teaches that the marriage of baptized persons is one of the seven sacraments of the New Covenant.10 Like all of the other sacraments, marriage is a real symbol of the event of salvation. By means of baptism, man and woman are definitively placed within the new and eternal covenant of Christ with the Church. The intimate community of conjugal life and love, founded by the Creator, is elevated and assumed into the spousal charity of Christ, sustained and enriched by His redeeming power.11 The Spirit which the Lord pours forth gives a new heart, freeing man from his hardness of heart, and renders man and woman capable of loving one another as Christ has loved us. Conjugal love reaches that fullness to which it is interiorly ordained, conjugal charity, which is the proper and specific way in which the spouses participate in, and are called to live, the very charity of Christ who gave himself on the Cross. Spouses are the permanent reminder to the Church of what happened on the Cross; they are for one another and for their children witnesses to the salvation in which the sacrament makes them sharers. Of this salvation event marriage, like every sacrament, is a memorial, actuation and prophecy. As a memorial, the sacrament gives them the grace and duty of commemorating the great works of God and of bearing witness to them before their children. As actuation, it gives them the grace and duty of putting into practice in the present, towards each other and their children, the demands of a love which forgives and redeems. As prophecy, it gives them the grace and duty of living and bearing witness to the hope of the future encounter with Christ.12

Cf. Eph. 5.32–33; cf. John Paul II, Exhort. apost. Familiaris consortio (22-XI–1981), n. 13. Council of Trent, Session XXIV, can. 1 (DS 1801). 11 Cf. Council of Vatican II, Const. past. Gaudium et spes, n. 48; cf. John Paul II, Exhort. apost. Familiaris consortio (22-XI–1981), n. 13. 12 John Paul II, Exhort. apost. Familiaris consortio (22–XI–1981), n. 13. 9

10

84

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

Tertullian has expressed the greatness of this conjugal life in Christ and its beauty: How can I ever express the happiness of the marriage that is joined together by the Church, strengthened by an offering, sealed by a blessing, announced by angels and ratified by the Father? […] How wonderful the bond between two believers with a single hope, a single desire, a single observance, a single service! They are both brethren and both fellow-servants; there is no separation between them in spirit or flesh; in fact they are truly two in one flesh and where the flesh is one, one is the spirit.13

The family, a communion of persons Love is a gift. Conjugal love does not end with the couple, because it makes them capable of the gift by which they become cooperators with God in giving life to a new human person. According to the plan of God, marriage is the foundation of the wider community of the family, since marriage and conjugal love are ordained to the procreation and education of children. Thus the couple, while giving themselves to one another, give not just themselves but also the reality of children, who are a living reflection of their love, a permanent sign of conjugal unity and a synthesis of their being a father and a mother. Their parental love is called to become for the children the visible sign of the very love of God, “from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named.”14 Even when procreation is not possible, conjugal life does not lose its value. Physical sterility in fact can be for spouses the occasion for other important services to the life of the human person, for example, adoption, various forms of educational work, and assistance to other families and to poor or handicapped children. The human family, disunited by sin, is reconstituted in its unity by the redemptive power of the death and Resurrection of Christ. In matrimony and in the family each human person is introduced into the “human family.” This is, moreover, an introduction into the “family of God,” which is the Church. Christian marriage and the Christian family build up the Church. In the family, the human person is not only brought into being and progressively introduced by means of education into the human community; by means of the rebirth

Ad uxorem, II, VIII, 6–8 (CCSL, I, p. 393). Eph. 3.15; cf. John Paul II, Exhort. apost. Familiaris consortio (22–XI–1981), n. 14.

13 14



The Plan of God for Marriage and the Family: A Roman-Catholic Perspective 85

in baptism, and education in the faith, the child is also introduced into God’s family, which is the Church.

Mission of the family The family finds in the plan of God not only its identity, but also its mission. The family has the mission to reveal and communicate love, and this is a living reflection of, and a real sharing in, God’s love for humanity and the love of Christ the Lord for the Church his bride. Every particular task of the family is a concrete actuation of that fundamental mission. There are four general tasks for the family: a. Forming a community of persons; b. Serving life; c. Participating in the development of society; d. Sharing in the life and mission of the Church.

Forming a community of persons The first task of the family is to live with fidelity, the reality of communion. The inner principle of that task, its power, and its final goal, is love. The Christian family constitutes a specific revelation and realization of ecclesial communion, and for this reason it can be called “the domestic Church.”15 The Christian family is called to experience a new and original communion which confirms and perfects natural and human communion. The first communion is the one which is established between husband and wife. Man and woman “are no longer two but one flesh,”16 and they are called to grow continually in their communion through day-to-day fidelity to their marriage promise of total mutual self-giving. Every day they are able to progress towards an ever richer union with each other on all levels—of the body, of the character, of the heart, of the intelligence and will, of the soul—revealing in this way to the Church and to the world the new communion of love, given by the grace of Christ. Conjugal communion constitutes the foundation on which is built the broader communion of the family, of parents and children, of brothers and sisters, of relatives and other members of a household. The love that animates the interpersonal relationships of the different members of the family constitutes the interior strength that shapes and animates the family communion. Council of Vatican II, Const. dogm. Lumen gentium, n. 11; Decree Apostolicam actuositatem, n. 11. Mt. 19.6; Gen. 2.24; cf. John Paul II, Exhort. apost. Familiaris consortio (22–XI–1981), n. 18.

15 16

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

86

The Holy Spirit is the living source of the supernatural communion that gathers believers and links them with Christ and with each other in the unity of the Church of God.

Serving life Fecundity is the fruit and the sign of conjugal love, the living testimony of the full reciprocal self-giving of the spouses. God calls them to a special sharing in his love and in his power as Creator and Father, through their free and responsible cooperation in transmitting the gift of human life: “God blessed them, and God said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it’’.’17 The task of the family is to serve life, to actualize in history the original blessing of the Creator—that of transmitting by procreation the divine image from person to person. The fruitfulness of conjugal love is enlarged by all those fruits of moral, spiritual, and supernatural life which the father and mother are called to hand on to their children, and through the children to the Church and to the world.

Participating in the development of society The family is the original cell of social life. It is the natural society in which husband and wife are called to give themselves in love and in the gift of life. Authority, stability, and a life of relationships within the family constitute the foundations for freedom, security, and fraternity within society. The family is the community in which, from childhood, one can learn moral values, begin to honor God, and make good use of freedom. Family life is an initiation into life in society.18 The family, a natural society, exists prior to the State or any other community, and possesses inherent rights which are inalienable; the family constitutes, much more than a mere juridical, social and economic unit, a community of love and solidarity, which is uniquely suited to teach and transmit cultural, ethical, social, spiritual and religious values, essential for the development and well-being of its own members and of society.19

The family has vital and organic links with society, since it is its foundation and nourishes it continually through its role of service to life: it is from the family Gen. 1.28; cf. John Paul II, Exhort. apost. Familiaris consortio (22–XI–1981), n. 28. Catechism of The Catholic Church (1997), n. 2207. Charter of The Rights of The Family (22–X–1983). Presented by the Holy See to all persons, institutions and authorities concerned with the mission of the family in today’s world.

17 18 19



The Plan of God for Marriage and the Family: A Roman-Catholic Perspective 87

that citizens come to birth and it is within the family that they find the first school of the social virtues that are the animating principle of the existence and development of society itself. Thus, far from being closed in on itself, the family is by nature and vocation open to other families and to society, and undertakes its social role.

Sharing in the life and mission of the Church Among the tasks of the Christian family is its ecclesial task. “Religious education and the catechesis of children make the family a true subject of evangelization and the apostolate within the Church.”20 The Christian family builds up the Kingdom of God in history through the everyday realities that concern and distinguish its state of life. It is thus in the love between husband and wife, and between the members of the family, that the Christian family’s participation in the prophetic, priestly, and kingly mission of Jesus Christ and of his Church finds expression and realization.

The family, agent of the evangelization The eternal design to save men and women in and through Christ was revealed and realized by the Word Incarnate, especially through the paschal mystery of his death, resurrection, ascension, and sending of the Holy Spirit. The Church proclaims this mystery. The Church has received the mandate to announce this great news to all people: “Go, therefore, make disciples of all nations; baptize them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Mt. 28.19). The apostles understood it thus and carried it out from Pentecost, filling Jerusalem and all the known world of the time with the announcement of Christ Crucified and Resurrected. Every Christian faithful shares in this responsibility. The Christian family, through the Sacrament of Marriage and the Baptism of the parents and the children, shares in this mission. “Like the Church, the family must be a space where the Gospel is transmitted and where it radiates. Within a family that is aware of its mission, every member evangelizes and is evangelized. […] Such a family evangelizes other families and its surrounding environment.”21 John Paul II, Letter to Families, (2–II–1994), n. 16; cf. John Paul II, Exhort. apost. Familiaris consortio (22–XI–1981), n. 50. 21 Paul VI, Exhort. apost. Evangelii nuntiandi (8-XII–1975), n. 71. 20

88

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

There is an announcement of the Gospel to non-Christians, to non-believers, and here the Christian family is called to have a strong missionary commitment. But the first and main recipients of this missionary announcement for the family are their children and relatives, as is attested in Paul’s Pastoral Letters and the subsequent praxis. In the earliest times of Christianity, the Christian family appeared as the transmitter of the parents’ faith, as manifested in the practice of presenting the children for baptism and the acceptance of this proposal by the bishop in charge of the community. The parents’ witness played a decisive role, to the point that the family became the place par excellence where the Church transmitted the faith. The great saints were usually born into deeply Christian families. It is a fact that, in countries where faith was persecuted for a long time, it was preserved and transmitted through the ministry of the parents.

The family, first experience of Church As the generator of children, the family becomes the first and principal institution entrusted with transmitting the saving mystery of God to them. For this reason, parents are the authentic transmitters to their children of the faith they profess. The Christian family is “a Church in miniature,” a “domestic Church.” The family is the first experience of the Church that a person receives, because, in the family, a person receives a primary and elementary initiation in the faith, receives the first sacraments and has the first experience with charity. The parents’ most important missionary preaching has to be in their own family bosom. The family carries out “its mission of preaching the gospel, mainly through the education of children.”22 The family has a specific way of evangelizing, through everyday love, simplicity, concretion and daily testimony. Parents transmit the faith to their children through the testimony of their Christian life and word. The faith penetrates as if by osmosis, in an imperceptible but very real way. The most important values of the Gospel are thus transmitted. It is an environment that the children breathe and incorporate. The Christian family places God on the horizon of the life of their children from the first moment of their conscious existence. With full coherence, from the moment of their children’s birth, the parents ask the Church for their baptism, and they joyfully take their children to receive the baptismal waters. They then accompany them in preparing for the First Communion and for John Paul II, Encyclical Evangelium vitae (25–III–1995), n. 92; cf. Pontifical Council for the Family, Preparatory Catecheses for the Fifth World Meeting of Families. First Catechesis, n. 4, Rome 2006.

22



The Plan of God for Marriage and the Family: A Roman-Catholic Perspective 89

Confirmation and enroll them in the parish catechism classes and look for the school that gives them the best education. With daily prayer in the family and the first simple explanations that parents must give their children, they are able to initiate them gradually to the truths of faith. The core aspect of this education in the faith is the joyful and vibrant announcement of Christ, Crucified and Resurrected for our sins. The other truths contained in the Apostles’ Creed, the sacraments and the Ten Commandments are in intimate connection with this core. This helps the young discover and receive God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, and the Church. Christian education seeks the maturity of the human person, but it especially seeks that the baptized become increasingly aware of the gift received from faith; that they learn to worship God the Father in spirit and in truth, especially in the liturgy; that they are educated to live according to the “new man” in justice and holiness of truth and thus reach the perfect man at the age of the fulfillment of Christ and contribute to the growth of the Mystical Body; that they become accustomed to bearing witness to the hope in them and efficiently contribute to the Christian configuration of the world.23 The true Christian education of children is not limited to including God among the important things of children’s lives, but to put God in the center of their lives, so that all the other activities and realities (intelligence, feelings, freedom, work, rest, pain, illness, allergies, material possessions, culture) everything is molded and ruled by the love of God. Human virtues form part of the integral education of the faith.

The family, transmitter of human virtues and values The family is the right place for an individual to be born and to grow, to receive the first notions of truth and good, to learn what it means to love and to be loved, and, consequently, what it means to be a person. The family educates a person according to all their dimensions in order to fulfill their dignity. The family is the natural community where the first experience and first learning of human social behavior are found. The reciprocal giving of man and woman joined in marriage creates an environment of life in which the child may develop his potential, and become aware of his dignity and destiny. In this environment of natural affection that joins all the members of the family community, each individual is recognized and given responsibility. Loving means giving and receiving something that Council of Vatican II, Declaration on Christian Education Gravissimum educationis, n. 2.

23

90

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

cannot be bought or sold, only freely and reciprocally given. Thanks to love, each member of the family is recognized, accepted and respected in his dignity. Love gives rise to relationships lived as free giving, and from which disinterested and solidly profound ties emerge. The Christian family shows its children that their grandparents and elders are not useless because they are not productive, or burdensome because they need the disinterested and constant care of their children and grandchildren; the family teaches the new generations that, besides economic and functional values, there are other human, cultural, moral, and social assets that are even superior to the former. The child thus incorporates criteria and attitudes that will be useful later on in that other bigger family, which is society. The family is the primary place for interpersonal relations, the foundation of people’s lives and the prototype of all social organization. It is the suitable environment for the teaching and transmission of the cultural, ethical, social, spiritual and religious values that are essential for the development and wellbeing of both the family members and society. Indeed, it is the first school of the social virtues needed by all peoples. The family helps persons develop certain fundamental values that are indispensable for the formation of free, honest and responsible citizens; e.g. truth, justice, solidarity, helping the weak, love for others, tolerance, etc. The family helps children develop a sound conscience regarding the great questions of human life: adoration and respect for God, Creator and Savior, love for parents, respect for life, for their own bodies and the bodies of others, respect for material goods and the honor of their fellow men, human fraternity, the universal destination of the goods of creation, non-discrimination on religious, social or economic grounds, etc. The family is the best school for creating community and fraternal relations given the current individualistic trends. The family constructs a network of interpersonal relations every day and prepares for life in society in a climate of respect, justice and dialogue. The Christian family faces the enormous challenge of forging the moral conscience of the children in truth and rectitude, while respecting their dignity and freedom. Parents should confidently teach their children these values, starting with the most radical of all: the existence of truth and the need to seek and follow it in order to fulfill themselves as persons. Modern man is increasingly convinced that the dignity and vocation of human beings require that, guided by the light of their intelligence, they should discover the values inscribed in their nature, develop them and realize them in life, and thus achieve personal progress. Man, in the depths of his conscience, discovers the presence of a moral law that he does not set for himself and which he must obey. These fundamental



The Plan of God for Marriage and the Family: A Roman-Catholic Perspective 91

principles have been written by God in his heart and can be grasped by reason. Certainly, many concrete conditions and needs of human life have changed and will continue to change. Nevertheless, the evolution of customs and forms of life will always remain within the bounds imposed by the principles founded on the constituent elements and on the essential relationships of human life; elements and relationships that go beyond historic contingencies.

Collaborators of the family The family is not a self-sufficient institution in transmitting the faith to its children. It needs to be in close relation with the parish and the school that the children attend. The parish catechesis and the religion class in the educational center complement informal family catechesis, which must also be formal at times. Family, school, and parish are three realities that must work in an integral and harmonic way to give the education that the children need. The greater the mutual collaboration and exchange, the more affectionate the relationship and the more efficient the education of the children will be. The family needs the parish. The parents educate in the faith, above all, through the testimony of their Christian life, especially through the experience of the unconditional love with which they love their children and the profound love that, as spouses, they feel for each other; which is a living sign of the love of God the Father. Additionally, in accordance with their capacity, they are called to give religious instruction, usually in an occasional and unsystematic form, which they carry out by revealing the presence of the mystery of Christ the Savior in the world, in the events of family life, in the feast days of the liturgical year, in the activities performed in school, in the parish and in groups, etc. Nevertheless, parents need the help of the parish because the life of faith matures in the children as they are incorporated into the concrete life of the People of God, which especially happens in the parish. This is where first the child and the teenager, and then the adult, celebrates and takes nourishment from the sacraments, participates in the liturgy and joins a dynamic community of charity and apostolate work. The family also needs the help of the State, to safeguard the rights and obligations of the parents and the others involved in education; to provide assistance and collaboration whenever the effort of the parents is insufficient; to complete the task of education according to the principle of subsidiarity, attending to the desires of the parents and creating the proper schools and institutions as is required by the common good. The State, therefore, rather than being

92

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

antagonistic to or being in conflict with the parents, should be their best ally and collaborator, providing all and only what the parents cannot provide and doing it as directed by the parents. This loyal and efficient collaboration must also include the teachers in all the educational centers, both private and public. The children will be the first to benefit from this collaboration, although society and the school will also benefit because these children will be better citizens in the near future.

Marriage and virginity or celibacy Christian revelation recognizes two specific ways of realizing the vocation of the human person to love: marriage and virginity or celibacy.24 Each one is, in its own proper form, an actuation of the most profound truth of man, of our being created in the image of God. Marriage and virginity or celibacy are two ways of expressing and living the one mystery of the covenant of God with his people. Virginity or celibacy for the sake of the Kingdom of God not only does not contradict the dignity of marriage but presupposes it and confirms it. Virginity or celibacy keeps alive in the Church a consciousness of the mystery of marriage and defends it from any reduction and impoverishment. “Whoever denigrates marriage”—says St. John Chrysostom—“also diminishes the glory of virginity. Whoever praises it makes virginity more admirable and resplendent. What appears good only in comparison with evil would not be particularly good. It is something better than what is admitted to be good that is the most excellent good.”25 In virginity or celibacy, the human being is awaiting in a bodily way the eschatological marriage of Christ with the Church. The celibate person thus anticipates in his or her flesh the new world of the future resurrection.26 Virginity or celibacy, by liberating the human heart in a unique way,27 bears witness that the Kingdom of God and his justice is that pearl of great price which is preferred to every other value no matter how great, and hence must be sought as the only definitive value.

Cf. Mt. 19.12. De virginitate, X (PG 48, col. 540); cf. John Paul II, Exhort. apost. Familiaris consortio (22–XI–1981), n. 16. 26 Cf. Mt. 22.30. 27 1 Cor. 7.32. 24 25

7

Marriage in the Catholic Churchand the Problems of Interdenominational Families Przemyslaw Kantyka

Preliminary note In the whole paper we understand by “marriage” the couple constituted of one man and one woman, bound together by the exchange of consent and/or blessing according to appropriate religious ceremony of any Christian denomination, sacramental and non sacramental. By the term “mixed marriage” we understand the marriage of Christians from two canonically different denominations, most often, here, one side being a Roman Catholic.

Roman Catholic understanding of marriage All that concerns marriage in the Roman Catholic Church from the point of view of the ecclesiastical law is regulated by the “Code of Canon Law”1 of 1983 and disclosed in canons 1055–1165. The theology of marriage is developed and explained in the “Catechism of the Catholic Church”2 issued during the pontificate of saint Pope John Paul II. According to the Catechism every Christian marriage is not only a civil contract but, first of all, the community of love and a covenant between one man and one woman before God. Catholics believe that God himself is the creator of marriage. The vocation to marriage is inscribed into the created nature of man and woman. God who created man out of love and in his own image at the same time called him to love. The love then is the realization of God’s image in man and woman and Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II (London: Collins 1983). Catechism of the Catholic Church. Second Edition. Revised with the official Latin text promulgated by Pope John Paul II (Vatican: Liberia Editrice Vaticana 1997).

1 2

94

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

their basic vocation. Such love is fruitful in children, the procreation however isn’t the main goal of the marital union. God’s original plan for man and woman is to create a sacred union: “It is not good that the man should be alone” (Gen. 2.18). Christ raised marriage between the baptized to the dignity of a sacrament, a special symbol of Christ’s presence in the life of the baptized persons. A sacramental marriage provides to the husband and wife the ability and strength to live out their commitment of love, and to help each other on the path to salvation. The sacrament of matrimony signifies the union of Christ and the Church. It gives spouses the grace to love each other with the love with which Christ has loved his Church. The grace of the sacrament thus perfects the human love of the spouses, strengthens their indissoluble unity, and sanctifies them on the way to eternal life. Marriage is based on the consent of the spouses, that is, on their openly and publicly expressed will to give themselves, each to the other, mutually and definitively. Thus the spouses administer the sacrament of marriage mutually to each other. The minister entitled by the Church—deacon, presbyter or bishop— assisting at the marital ceremony is the official witness on behalf of the Church who blesses the union of the spouses. Apart from the representative of the Church the exchange of vows must also be witnessed by two other witnesses, major and capable to perform legal acts. In the Roman Catholic Church marriage is ‘one’, that means that it may be contracted with only one person, which excludes polygamy and polyandry. It is also inseparable, which means that, if validly contracted, it cannot be dissolved by any means or authority. The procedure of annulment may be used only in regard to marriages proved before the Diocesan Tribunal as invalidly contracted, and cannot be mistaken with any form of divorce. The sacramental union ends only with the death of one party and then the widow(er) is free to enter into new sacramental marriage. The Roman Catholic Church does not allow, as may be the case in the Orthodox Churches, remarriage in the Church during the life of the first married husband or wife, even after the break-up of sacramental marriage or by the permission of any Church authority. Here the Roman Catholic Church does not explore the so called “clause of Matthew” (the case of adultery), as written in the Gospel of Matthew.



Marriage in the Catholic Church

95

Mixed marriages – values and problems “Mixed marriage” means the marriage of Christians from two canonically different denominations. We will look at the phenomenon from the Roman Catholic point of view. The case of marriage of a Catholic with a non-Christian is not considered in this paper. We consider to be a Christian only a member of such a community, where Christ is confessed as God and Saviour and where baptism is practiced by submerging in water or pouring out of water and where the trinitarian formula is then spoken. First we have to state, that, although the Roman Catholic Church does not encourage the contracting of mixed marriages, she does not forbid it. Such marriages commonly happen especially in the countries where the denominations coexist, so the Roman Catholic Church has prepared rules to deal with mixed marriages. Although the subject of the Roman Catholic canon law is only the Catholic party in the marriage, the non-Catholic party is—by the very fact of creating a couple—also involved in what the Catholic party is required to obey. The rules considering mixed marriages are inscribed in the “Code of Canon Law,” in the “Ecumenical Directory”3 and in the pastoral instructions issued by the Episcopal Conferences of a given country. On the local level there may also exist agreed declarations concerning mixed marriages between the Roman Catholic Church and another Church or a local Council of Churches. This is the case in Poland—the case I will especially explore in this paper. The instruction prepared by the Polish Episcopal Conference (of the Roman Catholic Church) in 1987 up to now regulates the question of mixed marriages in Poland in the case where one party is Roman Catholic. First of all we have to state that a mixed marriage may present a great value of joined witness to Christ of faithful from two different denominations. It may be the specific school of ecumenism, of mutual learning about each other and understanding, of mutual enriching by the respective cultures of the spouses. At the same time we have to admit that a mixed marriage may also fall into a trap of religious indifference, lowering the piety to the lowest common base. So the Catholic party should be also informed about the danger of the loss of faith. Other things this party should be made aware of are the problems of baptizing the children and religious upbringing, common participation in the life of the Church or Churches, especially on Sunday and feasts. The most problematic is Pontificium Consilium ad Christianorum Unitatem Fovendam, Directory for the application of principles and norms on ecumenism, AAS 85(1993), 1039–1119.

3

96

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

the feast that never happens at the same time, as e.g. Catholic and Orthodox Christmas. Some of the mixed families have adopted a solution according to which, for example, boys are baptized in the faith of their father and the girls in the faith of their mother. The participation in the Sunday worship may happen alternately in the parish of one parent and next Sunday in that of another one. These customary solutions however cannot be judged as good, as they maintain the division between the Churches. As the marriage is perceived as a sacred union wanted by God from the very act of creation, the marriage between Christians is always a sacrament, even in spite of whatever conviction a bride or groom from any non-Catholic denomination could have. It is not only the Roman Catholic Church that considers marriage as one of seven sacraments. This point of view is shared with Orthodoxy and in general with the Old Catholic Churches. The situation is different with the Churches issuing from the sixteenth century Reformation, Protestant, Anglican, Methodist and new Evangelical, who recognize only two sacraments: baptism and Eucharist. This results in the variety of approaches to the basic perception of marriage as one and inseparable.

Mixed marriages and the Roman Catholic canon law From a very early age in the Church there was a strong conviction that a Christian should marry only a Christian. A person not being in communion with the Church for reason of paganism or heresy was not allowed to become a legitimate husband or wife to a Christian party. Thus the Council of Laodicea in 364 stated in canon 31: “It is not lawful to make marriages with all [sorts of] heretics, nor to give our sons and daughters to them; but rather to take of them, if they promise to become Christians.”4 In modern times when Christianity has already been divided on East and West the Roman Catholic Church used to forbid any marriage with a non-Catholic. In 1886 Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical “Quod Multum” prompted those responsible for pastoral care over the candidates to matrimony: “Further remind them that even for the gravest of reasons it is not permitted to enter into marriage with Christians who are not Catholics; those who do so

The Council of Laodicea in Phyrgia 364 A.D., online see: http://reluctant-messenger.com/council-oflaodicea.htm

4



Marriage in the Catholic Church

97

without the authority and indulgence of the Church sin before God and the Church.”5 This situation has also been described in a previous “Code of Canon Law” of 1917 in canon 1060: “Most severely does the Church prohibit everywhere that marriage be entered into by two baptized persons, one of whom is Catholic, and the other belonging to a heretical or schismatic sect; indeed, if there is a danger of perversion to the Catholic spouse and children, that marriage is forbidden even by divine law.”6 It is to be noticed, that the prohibition of mixed marriages was directly connected to the self-understanding of the Roman Catholic Church of those days, where the ecclesial dimension of non-Catholic denominations was generally questioned. The “Code of Canon Law” of 1917 thus reflected the pre-ecumenical era in the Roman Catholic Church. The situation changed with the openness to ecumenism brought by the Second Vatican Council. The Roman Catholic Church for the first time officially stated that Christians living in non-Catholic Churches and Church Communities are brothers and sisters in the Lord Jesus, and their communities are truly ecclesial: “For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation” (“Decree on ecumenism” no. 3).7 As a consequence of the new approach brought by Vatican II there was a considerable change concerning mixed marriages introduced in the “Code of Canon Law” of 1983. Further description of the canon law concerning mixed marriages will refer to this “Code of Canon Law” of 1983. In spite of considerable changes in the new canon law of the Roman Catholic Church, the interdenominational marriages where one party is Roman Catholic, even if permitted by the Catholic Church legislation, still encounter a number of problems which tackle both the conscience and the practical side of life. First, permission from the bishop must be asked to marry a non-Catholic (canon 1124), but this is customarily granted. The most severe requirement concerns the question of so-called declarations and promises. The Roman Catholic party is required to sign a declaration “that he or she is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith, and is to make a sincere promise to do all in his Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical on the Liberty of the Church “Quod Multum”, online see: http://www.vatican. va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_22081886_quod-multum_en.html 6 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law: In English Translation, with Extensive Scholarly Apparatus (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2001). 7 Decree on ecumenism, in: The documents of Vatican II: in a new and definitive translation, with commentaries and notes by Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox authorities, W. M. Abbott (ed.) (New York: Crossroad Press, 1989). 5

98

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

or her power in order that all the children be baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church” (canon 1125, 1). The non-Catholic party at the same time “is to be informed in good time of these promises to be made by the Catholic party, so that it is certain that he or she is truly aware of the promise and of the obligation of the Catholic party” (canon 1125, 2). This requirement causes the most difficulties for a mixed couple, as the non-Catholic party can feel forced to adopt the solution contrary to his or her conscience and even sometimes to the legal requirements of his or her own Church. The Catholic party can also feel uncomfortable signing the declaration, as she/he can never be sure of future possibilities of its fulfillment. Fortunately, besides the requirements made by the canon law there are also some concessions made towards a mixed couple-to-be. One of the concessions is the possibility of dispensation from the Catholic canonical form of celebrating the sacrament of marriage which can take place in the church of the bride or groom and before the non-Catholic minister. Although a Catholic can be granted permission to marry a non-Catholic and the marriage may take place in the Church of the non-Catholic party, if the exchange of vows between the spouses is to be witnessed by a minister of that denomination, the Catholic must seek a written dispensation from the local Catholic Bishop. Such a dispensation is customarily granted. In such a case the Roman Catholic minister is allowed to participate in the marital ceremony in a non-Catholic community. However he should take every precaution not to make any resemblance to con-celebration. On the other side, the non-Catholic minister may be invited to participate in the marital ceremony in the Roman Catholic church, dressed in his liturgical or traditional vestments, and also the precaution should be taken for it not to bear resemblance to con-celebration. Another sign of respect for the non-Catholic party is the ban on quick conversion to the Catholic Church. The instruction issued by the Polish Episcopal Conferences states that, if the wedding is the only reason for conversion, this should be refused. Also any kind of proselytism is prohibited. If the candidate to the marriage and conversion insists, reception into the Roman Catholic Church may be granted only after a solid instruction and, later, after three months. The same instruction requires the Roman Catholic minister to handle all the documents necessary for the Roman Catholic party who, despite the given instruction, decides to convert to the denomination of his or her future spouse. The celebration of a mixed marriage does not end, but, in fact, really starts the pastoral care of the new family. This should be done in all discretion and, if



Marriage in the Catholic Church

99

possible, in collaboration with the minister of the religious community where the non-Catholic party belongs. Most of the pastoral care should be directed to the children to help them in growing in faith. The whole family should be helped in discovering what unites the ecclesial communities of both parents and encouraged to join in common prayer and participate in all ecumenical events, especially in the Week of Prayer for Christian Unity.

The new proposal of regulation for mixed marriages in Poland The requirements of the Roman Catholic Church regarding the declaration of a future Catholic spouse to baptize and bring up in the Catholic faith all the children born from her/his marriage often caused conflict of conscience in the non Catholic spouse. Moreover, some non-Catholic Churches have started to require, for so-called “parity” or simply in retortion, the same from their own faithful. This situation put both future spouses in a conflict of conscience. They often complained that the Church communities deprived them of taking important parental decisions. To remedy this situation the Roman Catholic Church in Poland and the minority Churches entered into the process of long-lasting, but fortunately fruitful, dialogue. Here comment is needed about the “minority Churches.” The biggest religious minority in Poland constitutes the Autocephalous Orthodox Church, having, according to different statistics, from 300 to 400 thousand faithful, that is from the highest one percent of the Polish population. Other minority Churches are as follows: Lutheran Church—about 80,000 members, Reformed Church, Methodist Church, Polish Catholic Church, Old Catholic Mariavite Church, Baptist Church—each of them less than 10,000 members. The work on the declaration of the Roman Catholic Church and the Churches gathered in the Polish Ecumenical Council started in the late seventies and early eighties of the twentieth century, then were put aside. The new phase of work started after the jubilee year 2000, when the common declaration about baptism was presented. After multiple series of consultations the final version was approved by the Polish Episcopal Conference on 14 October 2011. The Polish Ecumenical Council has already given its consent. Now the new declaration is waiting for the “recognitio” (recognition) from the Roman Curia. This should not encounter any delay as the newly prepared declaration is based on the similar one elaborated in Italy between the Italian Roman Catholic Episcopal Conference and the Church of Waldens (“I matrimoni tra cattolici e valdesi o

100

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

metodisti in Italia”8), published in 2001 and already having the recognition of Pope John Paul II. What then is the new common declaration of Churches in Poland like? First, it usefully classifies the resemblances and differences in the teaching of Churches about marriage. It defends the nature of marriage as the union of man and woman. Then it promotes the upkeeping of the faith against the temptations of indifference and points at the ecclesial character of bringing up the children. The promise by the Catholic party required by canon 1125 has been reformulated and has now the following form: I hereby declare that I will stand firm in my faith and recognize the right of my husband/wife to stand in his/her faith. I promise to do everything that will be in my might to baptize and bring up all my children in the faith of my Church and I take into consideration that my husband/wife has the same right and obligation in his/her Church. I will then seek the consent with my husband/wife in making the choices for the good of our union and spiritual life of our children.9

This declaration not only refers to the mentioned Italian document but also fulfills the requirements of the “Ecumenical directory” of 1993 (numbers 143–60).

Conclusions The complexity of the questions connected to mixed marriages always brings difficulty to the spouses-to-be and the Church authorities. It is important to find solutions which, without harming the individual conscience of one or both spouses, will fulfill the requirements of the community of the Church and will result in spiritual benefit for the whole Christian family. This is the hope for the new Polish ecumenical declaration on mixed marriages. A mixed marriage can be also perceived as a unique “laboratory” of ecumenical relations on a micro-scale. We could probably learn much from their experience and try to implement it in the inter-Church relations on a macro-scale.

Conferenza Episcopale Italiana. Il Sinodo delle Chiese Valdesi e Metodiste, I matrimoni tra cattolici e valdesi o metodisti in Italia. Documenti comuni della conferenza episcopale italiana e della chiesa evangelica valdese (Torino: Elledici Claudiana 2001). 9 http://www.ekumenia.pl/index.php?D=111 (English translation mine). 8

8

Family between Tradition/Traditions and Contemporary Lifein Orthodox Spirituality (With some References to St. John Chrysostom) Nicu Dumitrașcu

Preamble Pauline tradition speaks of marriage in an antithetical and paradoxical way: both joy and suffering are present in the life of spouses: You are bounded to a woman? Do not seek absolution. You are released from a woman? Do not seek a woman. If, however, you are married, you have not sinned. But those in this situation will have pain in their body, and I would like to spare you (1 Cor. 7.27–8).

Faithful to this guidance, Father Emilianos Simonopetritul from Mount Athos makes a surprisingly clear and precise analysis of marriage, addressing a monk. He sees marriage both as a way of pain, sadness and testing, and as one of love and mutual devotion.1

Marriage: path of pain and suffering Father Emilianos called companionship between man and woman yokedtogether, or marital living. In other words, the work of the two, man and woman, is always a work or a common task. Marriage is a voyage-together, a shared portion of pain, but, of course, also of joy. During the marriage ceremony the priest gives the couple to drink from the same cup (chalice) called “the common “Cea mai frumoasă cuvântare despre taina nunţii” (The most beautiful oration on the Wedding Sacrament, IV) (Familia Ortodoxă, October 10(33) (2011): 11).

1

102

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

cup” because together they will bear the burdens of marriage. It is the glass of deprivations, sorrows, joys, but also of failures. Therefore he says that when two people get married, it’s like saying: “Together we will go forward hand in hand, through good and bad times. We will have dark hours, hours of sorrow, burdensome, monotonous hours. However, in the depths of the night, we will further believe in sun and light.” Family life is not a party, as some imagine, but a continuous struggle for survival. It is like a vast ocean, not knowing when you are thrown on shore, not knowing when you will be shipwrecked.2 Orthodox spirituality, in general, talks about marriage as a school of courage, of sacrifice, and it portrays it even with a cross, but with one that flourishes and occasionally displays itself in beauty and light. But it would be a mistake to believe that it is simply a road to happiness because it involves experiencing pleasant suffering, where the pain turns into love. Only those who have really suffered can truly love. Thus, sorrow is one of the fundamental and necessary features of marriage.

Marriage: Path of love and mutual devotion A journey of love brings with itself the creation of a new human being, of a new person, after the Gospel words “both will become one flesh” (Mt. 19.5). From this union, freely consented to by two people, proclaimed before God and their peers, a new human being is born, in the sense that each becomes a presence and a living reality in the heart of the other. This union is not only a temporal commitment, but one eternal, where two strangers, sometimes of different ethnicity, with very diverse cultures and traditions, belong together in such intimacy that one lives through the other and neither feels that he/she is complete or a whole unless he/she is with the other. The husband becomes part of his wife, of her body and her soul, and his wife becomes part of her husband. Furthermore, for each, this will be accomplished not only with the other, but also because of the other.3 Marriage is a mutual spiritual growth. Therefore man should not seek only the external beauty of the woman but also her inner beauty, to seek her kind heart and mind, measured meditation and kindness. St. John Chrysostom says:

Ibid., 11. Ibid., p. 12.

2 3



Family between Tradition/Traditions and Contemporary Life

103

Seek thou for beauty of soul. Imitate the Bridegroom of the Church. Outward beauty is full of conceit and great licence and throws men into jealousy, and the thing often makes thee suspect monstrous things. But has it any pleasure? For the first or second month, perhaps, or the most for the year: but then no longer; the admiration by familiarity wastes away. Meanwhile the evils which arose from the beauty still abide, the pride, the folly, the contemptuousness. Whereas in one who is not such, there is nothing of this kind. But the love having begun on just grounds, still continues ardent, since its object is beauty of soul, and not of body.4

Marriage teaches spouses about Christ and the Church not only by taking some abstract concepts but by concrete life experience. Just as Christ came in the flesh to save us and to restore us through the mystery of his sacrificial love, the same happens in a marriage where the spouses have the opportunity to live a similar experience. Giving of and to each other is to replace selfishness and self-love with love for the other. Therefore, authentic Christian marriage is an embodiment of the Gospel, and the spouses themselves become prophets for their descendants, but also for each other and for the whole world. He who truly loves gives himself with joy. He does not give just to receive something in return, but to give a gift is an expression of his personality and his life because, on one hand he gives willingly, on the other hand, he gives from the largeness (overflow) of his heart. His love is creative, the love that builds. His love is not sterile (fruitless), but it causes in turn love inside the beloved, who, in his/her turn, becomes the giver. When a man is capable of this selfgiving, then he sees the other as a part of himself. The other’s welfare, her interests, her future are almost entirely identified with his. Love in marriage, compared to the love of those who are in love, is in the same relation as that between the big tree and the small one from which it grew. As time passes, the marriage, just like the tree, deepens its roots and the husband and wife grow more than the branches in order to blossom and to bear fruit. The transfer from romantic love to conjugal love is not, however, automatic, but under a warm sun of mutual testing, which is becoming more stable every year. True fulfillment is acquired not only in the flesh. Each of the people who participates in a genuine relationship brings into it his or her intellectual and emotional gifts. The husband shares, for example, his power and skill with his wife and the wife shares with her husband her femininity, sensitivity and delicacy. The virtues and talents of each are not only a source of joy and pride St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Ephesians, XX, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol.13, Philip Schaff (ed.) (1867; reprint, Grant Rapids: Eerdemans, 1994), 145.

4

104

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

for the other, but in time they make the union between them. Spouses exchange their virtues and talents, and, thus, they fulfill each other.5

Different authorities (competences) Saint John Chrysostom says that God has ordained from the beginning that family tasks should be divided between men and women. He does not allow that all the work in a marriage is to be done only by the husband, because it would lead to a total dependence of his wife on him and, moreover, even to a deprecation of her. Therefore, God gave women a role as important as that of man,6 which is revealed even in the biblical words: “Let’s make a support for him.” (Gen. 2.18) And so he did. But this does not imply the recognition of any superiority of man over woman, but of a complementary nature that God emphasizes through the diversity of the characteristics with which he endows both of them. Based on these features men and women are assigned with specific tasks. According to Scripture, God divided these tasks into two categories, namely: those that are in the house he reserved for women, and those outside the home, for men. Saint John does not see as being appropriate the change of this ordinance, considering that each can do a better job if he/she is left to deal with what he/she knows best.7 In other words, a family household management should remain the responsibility of the woman because here she is more orderly, more organized and more skilled than men, as always craftsmen are most skilled in their jobs than unskilled workers. Men, however, have the duty to bring home, through their work outside the household, the need for family subsistence, so that there should be no lack. Although, at first glance, to acquire what is needful for daily living seems to be a more difficult job, in reality, the management of these resources requires common sense and intuition traditionally associated with women. It sometimes happens that a man, because of his great need to earn, but also because of his constant absence from among the family, cannot help with Filoteu Faros & Stavros Kofinas, Căsnicia. Dificultăţi şi soluţii (Marriage. Difficulties and solutions) translated from Greek into Romanian by Şerban Tica (Bucharest: Sofia Publishing House, 2012), pp. 254–5. 6 St. John Chrysostom, “Despre căsătoria a doua a văduvelor” (Concerning the second marriage of the widows) translated from Greek (P.G., XLVIII, col. 609–620) into Romanian by D. Fecioru, (Bucharest: Institutul Biblic şi de Misiune al Bisericii Ortodoxe Române Publishing House, 2007), p. 173. 7 Ibid., 173. 5



Family between Tradition/Traditions and Contemporary Life

105

anything which contributes to the flowering and stability of a family, but rather to an instability and, ultimately, even to its disintegration, if he does not have the understanding, patience, intelligence and mastery of women.8 Nothing can be built unless the value and importance of each one’s job is recognized, depending on the gifts with which they are endowed by God and the efforts he or she makes​​ for their improvement. On the other hand, despite their specific features suitable to the divine purpose for which they were created by God, men and women are ontologically equal, meaning they have the same nature and therefore they have the same honor in his eyes. Equality in honor does not exclude the biological (or anatomical) differences, or those relating to the tasks that each of them has to accomplish.

The power of tradition In Orthodox spirituality the family was from the beginning, with the Church, the most important institution in society. It was not only the symbol of continuity but also of unity. There were some clear rules voluntarily undertaken by all, even if they were sometimes – very rarely – violated. Respect between generations, and respect between women and men, was almost sacred. Habits that defined this relationship were so strong that they were considered part of their existence. Anyone who did not respect them was excluded from society, marginalized. Therefore, everyone knew their place and position in the community: men, women, and children. Nobody tried to replace another, and that brought stability and peace in family life and, by extension, in society. Family tradition was so rooted in people’s hearts, so that nobody thought that almost all these habits, apparently without a religious significance, were an extension of the sacred in their lives. Of course there were distortions of their religious symbolism, but these did not alter their substance or essence.

Price of emancipation Nowadays family life has changed so much, and for some people so quickly, that they can hardly adapt to the new situation. Inter-family relationships are Ibid., 174.

8

106

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

different. Society itself has become more permissive and more understanding of certain attitudes and behavior that were formerly treated harshly. Woman has assumed for herself responsibilities that – by tradition – were for man, with the risk of losing even her femininity. Brutalization of women, however, is the last thing that man has expected from his beloved woman. That is why, rightly, it has been said that the harmony in a family that supports this new type of interpersonal relationship between two spouses, considered modern and progressive, is based on man’s adaptation to the new requirements of woman and can lead to a lifestyle which risks uncertainty and insecurity.9 It is true that the feminist movement started from a generous idea of women being emancipated from intellectual, cultural, economic and institutional stereotypes, in order to achieve an equalization of opportunities with men. Here we are talking about raising the level of education, access to science, art and even to political life. Unfortunately, it was reached, in some countries, at the expense of the natural relationship between two people of different genders who decided to start, and nurture, a family. Today, nobody says that women should be denied access to certain jobs or dignities, but it is not good that, through them, women try to behave like men, and it is also not good for men to feminize their behavior. Men sometimes transfer to their wives some of their traditional economic responsibilities, which they assumed through marriage and raising a family, to their wives, and undertake domestic tasks, in this way, levelling out with the women their major decisional investment in the family.10 The price of this emancipation, characterized by a radical change of the inter-human relationships in a marriage, has been, in many cases, the collapse, reduction and ignorance of the concept of the traditional family, which can lead, ultimately, not to happiness, but to emotional instability, stress and disruption at the inter-family level and, by extension, at the social level. For this reason, marriage has lost much of both its religious and social meaning, and of its moral authority. It has turned into a relationship between a couple which has derived nothing from the sacramental charge of a marriage, but is of a purely sexual and emotional character. In the Orthodox tradition, with its intrinsic traditionalism, marriage has lost, to some extent, even the linguistic connotations. Instead of family or marriage, today we talk also, maybe not as often, about the partnership

Ioan C. Teşu, “Familia contemporană între ideal şi criză” (Family between ideal and crisis), in Familia în societatea contemporană (Family in contemporary society), Viorel Sava and Ilie MelniciucPuică (eds) (Iaşi, Romania: Doxologia Publishing House, 2011), 272. 10 Teşu, 271. 9



Family between Tradition/Traditions and Contemporary Life

107

institution, about a test marriage, or, simply, concubinage, all once considered taboo.11 Some natural habits, such as the kissing of a woman’s hand by a man, with a slight bow, or the gesture of opening the door to let her enter before him, have nearly disappeared, being considered signs of discrimination, of inequality, of contempt, and not of consideration, charm and politeness, as they were before. Changing roles between man and woman is a distortion of the will of God. It is, finally, an emotional imbalance that should be avoided. The most serious problem is that they have changed not only responsibilities but even their anatomical physiognomy.

Equality in Diversity Let us turn to that phrase: man is the head and the woman is the body. Although that today seems rather reminiscent of an old concept, and obsolete, it is based on patristically well-anchored tradition. St. John Chryostom said: Thou art the head of the woman, let then the head regulate the rest of the body. Dost thou not see that it is not so much above the rest of the body in situation, as in forethought, directing like a steersman the whole of it? For in the head are the eyes both of the body, and of the soul. Hence flows to them both the faculty of seeing, and the power of directing. And the rest of the body is appointed for service, but this is set to command.12

The fact that man is considered head of a family is not a privilege (not to be regarded as an attribute of the master, the despot), but rather a huge responsibility, because, as the head is the center of the body, the engine that makes that body act in one way or another, although the heart provides emotional support, so the man should be the worthy and wise guide for the whole family. There is even a popular expression that, in an anecdotal manner, but with deeply Christian content, says that “man is the head, but woman is the neck and the neck is the one which determines the head to move in any direction she wants.” Today’s attitudes are certainly not as they were in the past, when it was considered that the major problems, both in family and society, should be Teşu, 272. St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on Thessalonians, V, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol.13, Philip Schaff (ed.) (1867; reprint, Grant Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), 397.

11 12

108

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

discussed, analyzed and solved by men. In the writings of St. John, the tasks of the spouses were very well-defined in accordance with the natural data of each. For him, the men had public, economic and social responsibilities, with a primary role in society, while the woman was considered lady of the house, the one who controlled all family matters (all current issues). There was no interference from one in the affairs of the other.13 Seen in a modern way, in our times, this division of tasks, this separation of responsibilities, is seen as backward, discriminatory and offensive to women. But, if we further explored this type of relationship, it could be seen that it brought not only a stable family unity but also a social balance in a world marked by political, economic and social instability, and, more than anything, a protection of the spouses’ identity, in accordance with the nature of each. It may seem somehow pejorative to have such a hierarchy of responsibilities of husband and wife in the family, but it fits perfectly in its attempt to create a smooth transition from a society marked by inequalities and major social inequities (the Roman Empire) to one where relationships between people were different, based on mutual love according to the teaching of Christ (Christian society), without causing major disruptions, but ensuring stability and not a social and political instability. St. John Chrysostom was a convinced supporter of the need for order in society, order that would have provided for the material and spiritual welfare of the people. In other words, he estimated that well-defined roles of men and women in the family, and therefore in society, had a great significance in maintaining civil order.14 And this apparent simplification of these issues came from his own experience. It’s true that, by subjecting himself to some very clear rules of conduct, he created a big problem even for those who wanted him for the position of Archbishop of Constantinople. Perhaps the radicalism of St. John displeased people even then and, to some extent, still does today, but it was meant to make easier the transition from one type of society, based on inequality and discrimination, to another, where interfamily/inter-human relationships are designed with a theological and spiritual horizon, where the love and care of spouses for each other are likened to those between Christ and the Church. He is the one who, though he lived in an era of slavery, when the master had the right of life and death, not only over the servants but even over his wife and David. C. Ford, “Bărbatul şi femeia în viziunea Sfântului Ioan Gură de Aur” (Man and woman in the vision of St. John the Golden Mouth), (Bucharest: Sofia Publishing House, 2004), 244. 14 Ford, 245. 13



Family between Tradition/Traditions and Contemporary Life

109

his children, argued that spouses should be fully equal in honor and dignity. He sees the family as a well-organized army unit, able to wage an invisible war against the evils of all kinds faced by man, to defeat them and earn the right to enter the kingdom of heaven, to gain salvation. Therefore, the family, as any wellformed and trained army, should be based on a strict order and a clear hierarchy, with a functional strategy led by a husband or male. He does not understand, as it may seem at a superficial reading, any discrimination against the woman, or a minimization of her role in the family and society, because, although she is placed second, she enjoys the same honor with as he who is in first place. In other words, expounding in a new manner Saint John’s conception of the relationship between spouses, we can say that there is no discrimination, but rather a harmonization of strict social attitudes with Christian values, where the family, led by the husband and cared for by the wife, should not be seen in terms of hierarchy, but of the collaboration and cooperation of them both in synergy.15 The struggle for domination between spouses is pathological and harmful because it brings with itself subjugation of the weak by the powerful, transforming persons into objects, cancelling their freedom and will. Struggle is healthy and useful only when the fight of each spouse manages to create unity one with the other without losing his/her own identity.16 Marriage should be an emotional-affective interplay of two people, where they keep their different identities in a functional link. The two persons must be joined in marriage so that they appear to be one, but remain at the same time each with his/her particular personality.17 St John believes that the fight for supremacy in the family is a consequence of original sin that can be overcome only in the spiritual dimension, through mutual love.18 Love transforms the tyranny of blind obedience into gentleness, and despotic authority into kindness and thoughtfulness. Therefore, love is what directs the struggle for primacy, in the mutual service of the spouses, and together, towards the good of the whole family. In order that better understanding between spouses should not be disturbed, they need to work together to grow that sacrificial love, in which each one gives himself to the other fully, without reserve. The ultimate goal of marriage is that husband and wife should

J. Mack, Guide to Acquire Harmony in Orthodox Families, trans. into Romanian by DoinaRogoti, (Bucharest: SophiaPublishing House, 2007), p. 88. 16 Filoteos Faros and Stavros Kofinas, p. 109. 17 Faros and Kofinas, 104. 18 Tesu, 288. 15

110

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

help one another to enter the kingdom of heaven. By sharing life in common they are called to bring each other closer to Christ.19 In Orthodox spirituality, therefore, in the family, husband and wife are workers together for perfection. One of them is no more important than the other. There is equality between them and they are worthy collaborators with/in Christ in the ministry of spiritual perfection.

Migration Formerly, the departure of people from Eastern Europe, mostly Orthodox (that is, Greeks, Romanians, Bulgarians, Serbs, Russians or Ukrainians) to the West was very rare, but in the last 20 years has become common. These moves, from one part of Europe to another, generally for economic reasons, bring with them substantial changes in family life, because of the new social realities that families need to adapt to, which are not easy at all. The Orthodox Church does not deny this human condition of the family, with its limits and fragility, because it cannot be dissociated from the culture and evolution of society at large, but militates for a common sacrificial resistance. The Church insists that spouses should not succumb to this regression, but hold together, because the family, even if it is not paradise, keeps some of the promises of heaven: marital communion.20 Migration is, without doubt, alienation, with an indefinite duration, which creates a serious problem not only for those who establish themselves abroad, but also for those who stay at home. The economic crisis coupled with a desire for higher earnings often leads to real family drama. Many people abandon their families in their own country and go to work abroad illegally, leading to social and emotional imbalances hard to describe. Those who suffer most are often the children. When both parents leave their children, the parental roles are assigned to their big brothers, grandparents, relatives or even neighbors. Such situations lead to a deterioration in the education of children who, deprived of parental care and supervision, are at risk of physical and psychological changes in behaviour. Spiritual ties are also weakened, through the absence of psychological contact David and Mary Ford, “Căsătoria – cale spre sfințenie” (Marriage – path to the holiness. Lives of married Saints), (Bucharest: Sofia Publishing House, 2007), p. 8. 20 Ioan Bria, “Ortodoxia în Europa. Locul spiritualitățiiromâne” (Orthodoxy in Europe. The place of the Romanian spirituality), (Iași: Mitropolia Moldovei și Bucovinei Publishing House, 1995), pp. 222–3. 19



Family between Tradition/Traditions and Contemporary Life

111

between parents and children, and this will hinder their normal socialization process.21 The parents’ long absence causes the child severe emotional disturbances, affects his interpersonal relationships and performance. He is no longer motivated to study or to have civilized behaviour, because he has no family with him that works both as a permanent support and as a careful and considerate “correction.” The child becomes lonely, or, on the contrary, loses his time in insignificant things or with unsuitable companions, at first without a deleterious effect on his development, but later leading to irreversible repercussions. Maintaining high rates of labor migration is one of the biggest problems which confronts the Orthodox Christian family because it has destructive effects on its stability, leading to increased divorces. The change of the function of education in migrants’ families, deterioration of the relations between parents and children, and also of the links between generations, unfortunately lead to the alteration of the most important human institution, the family. The new life into which immigrants move fluctuates between uncertainty and anxiety. Material needs of the immigrant heal more easily than those of the soul.22 Lack of friends, of home atmosphere from the country of origin, can often make a situation unbearable. The life of a “foreigner” is often synonymous with loneliness, sadness, nostalgia, and despair.23 Therefore, the Church plays a more important role in their life than at home. Basically, for many immigrants it is a kind of home. It’s where they speak their native language and rediscover their identity. The Church is a country in miniature. Therefore, paradoxically, in addition to the negative aspects of this alienation from their native land, there is a positive aspect, namely their approach to the faith, because some of them find their membership of the ancient Church and Orthodox culture precisely in such poor conditions. Although financially they have a better situation and they enjoy a better life, they face the problem of communicating with others, of the inter-human relationships. Communication is very important, and the place where they feel comfortable, where contacts are established more easily, is the Church. The Church plays a dual role for the Orthodox immigrant families. On the one hand it gives, as is natural, spiritual support, on the other, it is the institution that helps them to maintain ethnic, Olga Gagauz, “Some reflections about us and migration,” “Teaching Pro”, 5–6 (45–6) (December 2007): 6. 22 Gheorghios D. Mettalinos, “Parohia. Hristos în mijlocul nostru” (Parish. Christ in our midst), (Sibiu: Deisis Publishing House, 2004), 134. 23 Mettalinos, 134–5. 21

112

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

cultural and religious identity. People come to church in their native and also in their adoptive country from the same reasons, driven by the desire to find each other in a community and pray to God for their daily needs. In church man finds comfort and hope, believing that his presence and prayers will help him overcome all obstacles of life. Problems are everywhere, but maybe they have not the same intensity. The Church offers for its believers the spiritual support they need, especially when the believer is separated from his family left in the country, his wife and his children. Many of the Orthodox believers become true practitioners in the West.24 At home in their native country, because normality brings with itself a touch of relaxation, they had not felt the need to be so close to their Church. However, over time, due to professional obligations and new types of relationships, and their life changes, sooner or later they end up losing their habits, adopting others from the host country, not even speaking their native language well, and, through mixed marriages, slowly, slowly, the religious and even ethnic affiliation is endangered. They begin to organize their lives by different rules, in accordance with the host country, often in total contradiction to what they experienced before. Moreover, the religious affiliation of the host country’s citizens affects the religious life of the Orthodox believers. This depends on the region where they have decided to settle.25

Alienation within the family There is also another kind of alienation, namely alienation within the family, when society itself (although it wants to be the protector of the family!) requires attention to certain rules which force people to alienate one another. The constraints of today’s modern world will cause spouses to live almost parallel lives, to assume certain social roles separately, which often collide with family interests. They are forced to wake up in the morning and head for different jobs, often returning very late, almost no longer really having a life together. They even come to live like two strangers, sharing their expenses as two business partners, turning the family into a partnership, where loving Ștefan Mărculeț, “Mulți români au devenit ortodocși practicanți în Apus” (Many Romanians have become Orthodox practitioners in the West), interview with Metropolitan Seraphim, Ziarul Lumina, 17 June (2010). 25 For example, if they settled in northern Germany, where a majority are Protestants, not so attached to the Church, then also the Orthodox Christians are influenced by the spirit of the place, if, instead they live in Bavaria and in other mainly Catholic Länder where tradition is more alive in people’s lives, then also the Orthodox are positively influenced by the general atmosphere (Ștefan Mărculeţ). 24



Family between Tradition/Traditions and Contemporary Life

113

commitment is often replaced by pragmatic calculations, and marriage commitments are treated with a disarming easiness. Freedom of the spouses in such a family is seen as normal, each having the right to make a decision on his or her own life, without any restriction, not even of the oath of loyalty which they made at the beginning of their marriage. In former times such a thing was unthinkable, as every event was experienced by both spouses together and with the whole family. Young people used to follow certain rules of conduct that imposed very severe restrictions on their lives together before marriage. Therefore, they felt a certain frustration that they could not spend all their time together, promising to each other that things would change dramatically when they became a family. But they viewed this restriction as a moral obligation of spiritual and bodily cleansing, as a divine command which was not discussed, but was fulfilled. In the past, given that their concerns were generally common, spouses spent much time together. There was therefore a fulfillment of their dreams. Family tasks were well divided between themselves, but, often, were complementary, requiring the permanent presence of one of them in the other’s life. Temporary separations were rare, and the tradition of the place was stronger than any trend of change. Today, the situation is entirely different. The restrictions that I have mentioned were abandoned by an unsympathetic modernist culture, and the period before marriage has lost its charm and mystery. Young people start their family life without a civil or religious commitment, and the idea of a couple tends to permanently replace the one of a family. In most cases, both spouses go to work in the morning and when they return, tired, they have to deal with other domestic issues, specific to any family. Some of them even have many jobs, and the amount of time they spend in the family is extremely small, an almost non-existent dialogue during a dinner prepared in a hurry. Discussion is limited to current issues of the day, paying bills, repairing the car or refrigerator, or who knows how many other little things that concern everyday human life in a carousel of lost illusions.26 This repeated, endless, mechanical roundabout, without periods of relaxation in the family, without a permanent spiritual communication between spouses and between parents and children, can lead to damage of the normal relations in a family. Because, whatever the evolution of society, everyone should know their role in the family, support and help each other, with the feeling of obligation that they willingly assumed when they decided to enter into marriage. Faros and Kofinas, 224–5.

26

114

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

On the other hand, the rhythm of life imposed by a secular and consumerist society is very tiring and requires a very strong physical and mental strength of the contemporary person, which he cannot acquire, except with God’s help. Therefore, the rediscovery of the family as a miniature Church, as the school of communion and of the mutual assumption by the spouses of all that is best in both the individual and the community, represents, par excellence, its vocation.

Conclusions In Orthodox spirituality, the Christian family is seen as a sacrificial altar and a school of love and mutual devotion. In this relationship of love and giving and also in this dialogue of gifts, the spouses must give each other all they have that is most special, more beautiful and of greater value, convinced that they give without becoming poor, spiritually enriching one another. Marriage is both a cross, because it bears in itself all the hardships, sufferings, failures of both of them, and also a “laboratory” of the work and enlightenment which are needed for salvation, because it becomes an arena of struggle against sin and passion and of the common exercise of good works and virtues, making the home a “little Church” or, better put, “The Church within the house.”27 Therefore, all problems faced by the Christian family in contemporary society are direct consequences of human alienation from God, the Church, and Christian values. The moral crisis of family life in general is precisely due to not knowing, not practising or systematic ignorance of the spiritual teachings of the faith. Unfortunately, modern man is more willing to experience the impulses of the world where he lives, to follow the temptations that assail him more frequently and violently, than the Christian teachings which appear anachronistic and increasingly difficult for him.28 Therefore, the rediscovery and return of the family to old Christian values, that had the capacity to provide meaning and fulfillment for mankind, motivation and desire for spiritual progress, is the surest way to the stability and strength of it. It is needed to create a genuine culture of marriage, which has to highlight the authentic criteria of a family foundation and the status of

Gleb Kaleda, “ Biserica din casă” (The Church within the house), (Bucharest: Sofia & Cartea Românească Publishing House, 2006), 5–8. 28 Teșu, 298. 27



Family between Tradition/Traditions and Contemporary Life

115

the relationship between spouses, between parents and children, and between family and society.29 Family is the fundamental heart of any society and ignoring its instability and insecurity may have a tsunami effect on the whole world.

Teşu, 299–300.

29

9

Catholic and Lutheran Theology of Marriage. Differences and Resemblances Piotr Kopiec

Marriage and family are among the realities in which ecumenical relations between different Christian denominations take effect in an exceptional way. There are two factors that cause this interplay. First, marriage and family are in the limelight of theologies and ministries of all Christian confessions. As they belong to four main social institutions, they require a deep theological scrutiny and interpretation. Moreover, they concern the most primary environment of upbringing and determine human identity completely. Thus they specify also a confessional identity. That’s why theology of marriage and family often becomes a symbolic screen which is unknowingly used by Christian denominations to present themselves to each other. The second factor is a more exceptional derivative of the first one: it’s the issue of mixed marriages, which belongs to the most practical dimensions of ecumenical relations, and which challenges the theologies of various Christian churches to confront themselves with one another. The factors marked off above are clearly seen in the relations between the Catholic Church and the Lutheran Church. Both Catholics and Lutherans have perceived each other through various stereotypes and false judgments. This can be partially removed by the common work of the scrutiny which has been taken up by both churches in the ecumenical cooperation. The case of the Common Declaration about the Doctrine of Justification is here the best example. Stereotypes and prejudices about marriage and family have also influenced the way Catholics and Lutherans look at each other. Both churches accuse each other of depreciating the value of marriage. The Catholic Church’s emphasis on the sacramentality of marriage has been rejected in the Lutheran theology. Furthermore, Luther declared marriage to be “a worldly thing” that belongs to the realm of government. In the Protestant Reformation

118

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

one pointed out that the Catholic theology diminished the value of marriage relative to the priesthood and particularly to a monastic life. In fact, the Middle Ages presented the ideal of the celibate state as being spirituality superior to marriage and as a short way to heaven. This ideal is very well demonstrated in the following comparison frequently made by the Fathers in which the relative value of married and unmarried states is indicated: if the wedded state produces a thirty-fold, widowhood produces a sixty fold, but it is virginity that produces the hundred-fold.1 A thorough theological scrutiny of both Catholic and Lutheran interpretations of marriage should begin with their theological backgrounds. Catholics as well as Lutherans explain marriage in the perspective of salvation.

Theology of marriage Catholic theology The contemporary theology of marriage within Catholicism emphasizes both its anthropological and theological dimensions. The first one was derived from the Doctrine about Creation. The authors of the Catechism of the Catholic Church insist in one of the articles: The intimate community of life and love which constitutes the married state has been established by the Creator and endowed by him with its own proper laws… . God himself is the author of marriage. The vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator. Marriage is not a purely human institution despite the many variations it may have undergone through the centuries in different cultures, social structures, and spiritual attitudes. These differences should not cause us to forget its common and permanent characteristics. Although the dignity of this institution is not transparent everywhere with the same clarity, some sense of the greatness of the matrimonial union exists in all cultures. The well-being of the individual person and of both human and Christian society is closely bound up with the healthy state of conjugal and family life (“Catechism of the Catholic Church” – CCC 1603).

Marriage is inscribed in the nature of the person being created in God’s own image and resemblance. Man was created from God’s love just as he was also Bailey, D., The man-woman relation in Christian thought (London: Longmans, Green, 1959), p. 103.

1



Catholic and Lutheran Theology of Marriage. Differences and Resemblances 119

called to love. Since God created him man and woman, their mutual love becomes an image of the absolute and unfailing love with which God loves man (CCC 1604). The calling to marriage which is contained in the Act of Creation consists in both the physical complementarity and its providential aim determining human and supernatural destiny.2 The biblical unity related to marriage assumes the integrity of the person, which means a mental–physical unity. Marital love is integrated with life giving. Such love is intended to be fruitful and to be realized in the common work of watching over creation. As being inscribed in the Creation it is a relationship of man and woman. Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh, as we could read in Genesis 2.24. The Catechism writes that the Lord himself shows that this signifies an unbreakable union of their two lives by recalling what the plan of the Creator had been “in the beginning” (CCC 1605). This unbreakable union is linked with the theological dimension of marriage. Yet in the Old Testament it became an important symbol of God’s covenant with Israel in the image of exclusive and faithful married love. That’s why the prophets prepared the Chosen People’s conscience for a deepened understanding of the unity and indissolubility of marriage (CCC 1611). Marital love, one and inseparable is a unique expression of human love, insofar as it is a reflection of God’s love – a love “strong as death” that “many waters cannot quench”. (CCC 1611). Hence it becomes a sign of Covenant between Christ and the Church. Christian marriage in its turn becomes an efficacious sign, the sacrament of the covenant of Christ and the Church. Since it signifies and communicates grace, marriage between baptized persons is a true sacrament of the New Covenant (CCC 1617). Furthermore, the mystery of Christian marriage opens the anthropological perspective of the Economy of Salvation. The original communion between man and woman was ruptured as a result of original sin. Their relations were distorted by mutual recriminations; their mutual attraction, the Creator’s own gift, changed into a relationship of domination and lust; and the beautiful vocation of man and woman to be fruitful, multiply, and subdue the earth was burdened by the pain of childbirth and the toil of work (CCC 1607). According to Catholic theology these consequences become both punishments and remedies. The pain of childbirth and the toil of work help to overcome egoism, pursuit of one’s own pleasure, and to open oneself to the other, to mutual aid and to self-giving (CCC 1609). It is possible only with God’s grace. Incarnation and Christ’s offering of Majdański, K., Wspólnota życia i miłości. Zarys teologii małżeństwa i rodziny (Poznań; Warszawa: Pallotinum, 1979), p. 109.

2

120

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

himself on the cross change the earthly reality, and marriage, too. It becomes one of the ways of following Christ, denying oneself and taking up one’s cross. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament (CCC 1601).

Lutheran theology It seems that according to Luther’s description marriage is simply a natural and civil matter (“Die Ehe ist ein eusserlich weltlich Ding”). In the history of theology, this statement is considered as the most characteristic of his teaching about marriage. As mentioned above, Luther declared marriage to be “a worldly thing” that belongs to the realm of government. That’s why the emphasis should be put here on the Lutheran social doctrine. Luther’s thinking about society portrays a doctrine of spiritual (“geistliches Regiment Gottes”) and secular (“weltliches Regiment Gottes”) regimens of God. Both are God’s instruments to be used in the struggle with the Kingdom of Evil. Through the first one God rules by love and Word. It is appointed to defend against evil in the spiritual dimension. It uses faith and freedom of conscience, it enables a man to love his neighbors, and gives hope that the Kingdom of Heaven with its reign of peace and justice will come. But because of evil existing in the world, there is also a need for the second one, which keeps watch over law and order, and regulates social structures and relationships. The spiritual regiment manifests itself in the person of a priest, and the secular one in the person of a ruler. Both are complementary and constitute God’s instrument for ruling the world. According to Luther, any opposition or separation of both secular and spiritual regiment is not possible.3 Luther ascribed high importance to marriage and the family in such a dualistically arranged reality. This is clearly seen when one realizes that he occasionally introduced a third regiment, which is the home regimen (“Hausregiment”) into his social teaching. Yet, he finally assigned marriage and family to the secular, in other words world, regiment.

Röhm, E., and Thierfelder, J., Kirche-Staat-Politik. Zum Öffentlichkeitsauftrag der Kirche (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1979), p. 12.

3



Catholic and Lutheran Theology of Marriage. Differences and Resemblances 121 Here I want to close and leave this matter for now, and, as I did above, advise my dear brothers, the pastors and clergy, to refuse to deal with marriage matters as worldly affairs covered by temporal laws and to divest themselves of them as much as they can. Let the authorities and officials deal with them, except where their pastoral advice is needed in matters of conscience, as for example when some marriage matters should come up in which the officials and jurists had entangled and confused the consciences, or else perhaps a marriage had been consummated contrary to law, so that the clergy should exercise their office in such a case and comfort consciences and not leave them stuck fast in doubt and error.4

According to Luther, marriage is assigned to the secular regiment as a result of the discovery that marriage and family are known in all cultures in both historical and geographical dimensions. They couldn’t be regarded as a special Christian form. This is also one of the reasons why Luther did not regard marriage as a sacrament. The importance of marriage doesn’t consist therefore in its nature but in its functions. Luther changed his teaching partially, as the Protestant Reformation was developed, and, what is important, as he gained experience as a husband of Katerina von Bora. Because of the differences in his teaching it isn’t possible to specify particular functions with which marriage was entrusted. Yet there are two of high importance: the birth of a child and the arrangement of human sexuality. Referring to the first point: the main gift to the world that could be given by a marriage is birth and the upbringing of a child. It should be treated as the most important input of the parents in God’s fight with the Kingdom of Evil. Referring to the second point: marriage becomes the best protection against unfaithfulness, adultery and unchastity (“Hurerei”). The starting point is the belief that, like the whole of creation, the sexual drive is God’s work. Human nature has been corrupted by original sin. This has affected man’s sexuality. After Adam’s fall it gave an impulse to unchastity, and consequently to the captivity of sin, because of its strength. The suppression of sexual drive leads to undesirable consequences in different dimensions, also in a social aspect. That’s why marriage is of such high importance. Within marriage the sexual drive gains proper features foreseen in God’s intention. The criterion of evaluation of the sexual drive consists in the differences of the places where it is realized. The sexual act within marriage is blessed because of its participation in God’s plan of creation. Conception (“actus generationis”) thereby is of a different nature than Plass, E. M., What Luther Says. A Practical In-Home Anthology for the Active Christian (St Louis: CPH, 1959), pp. 317–19.

4

122

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

lust (“libido”). The sexual act outside marriage poses a high risk of falling into the captivity of Evil (“Knechtschaft des Teufels”) and to persist in sin. The fullest description formulated by Luther is finally provided by these words: This is the true definition of marriage: Marriage is the God-appointed and legitimate union of man and woman in the hope of having children or at least for the purpose of avoiding fornication and sin and living to the glory of God. The ultimate purpose is to obey God, to find aid and counsel against sin; to call upon God; to seek, love, and educate children for the glory of God; to live with one’s wife in the fear of God and to bear the cross; but if there are no children, nevertheless to live with one’s wife in contentment; and to avoid all lewdness with others.5

The Lutheran theology has been determined by soteriology and anthropology,6 which is the doctrine about how Christ redeems a man. All its components, including the theology of marriage, are subordinated elements of its main idea. The value of marriage consists in its functions. It should partake in the realization of God’s Kingdom on earth and it should serve the salvation of man. Luther declared marriage to be “a worldly thing” that belongs to the secular regiment but it doesn’t mean it is less sacred. Yet the secular regiment must also be seen as God’s instrument used for the salvation of man.

The issue of the sacramentality of marriage The most remarkable difference between Catholic and Lutheran theologies of marriage is Luther’s denial of the sacramentality of marriage. It is worth noticing that Catholic doctrine about the sacramentality of marriage was finally formed by the Council of Trident 1545–63. It was almost half of a century after the first appearance of Luther. The teaching about the sacramentality of marriage has been shaped in a long process, the beginnings of which were marked in the ninth century by the teaching of Hinkmar, then an archbishop of Reims. The development of the doctrine was determined by controversies which intended to fix a moment of a beginning of marriage. Two possibilities were taken into consideration: an agreement between spouses and a sexual act (“copula carnalis”). At this point, Ibid., p. 884. Lähteenmäki, O., Sexus und Ehe bei Luther (Turku: Luther-Agricola-Gesellschaft, 1955), p. 45.

5 6



Catholic and Lutheran Theology of Marriage. Differences and Resemblances 123

the teaching of Peter Lombard, a leading scholastic theologian, which shaped the Catholic doctrine about marriage was of great importance among theologians. He described marriage as a holy sign of a holy thing (“sacrum signum”). Furthermore, he distinguished between terms of “form” and “matter” of the sacrament: the first one is identical with a common agreement of spouses, the second one – with their sexual act. According to him the notion of sacrament refers to two dimensions: “res significata,” the relation between Christ and the Church and “res contenta,” the common commitment of man and woman. The teaching of Peter Lombard was then confirmed by Thomas Aquinas. Scholastic philosophy has introduced also the notion of obstacles (“impedimenta”) which deprived marriage of the quality of holiness. Furthermore, it has rejected mixed marriages, restricted a possibility of marriage in case of a close degree of blood relationship and established age limits. The teaching about the sacramentality of marriage was finally shaped at the Council of Trident, where the scholastic doctrine about marriage treated as sacrament was confirmed. The Catholic Church has emphasized its right to describe causes of an annulment of marriage as well as a catalogue of its obstacles. It has rejected a possibility of divorces and marriages of priests but maintained a possibility of separation from “table and bed” (Latin: “quoad thorum seu cohabitationem”). Celibacy is declared to be a blessed state. The institution of marriage is regulated by the church law. Lutheranism has rejected the sacramentality of marriage due to its defining of the notion of sacrament. The main principle of the Lutheran theology is that the only source of divine Revelation should be Holy Scripture (the principle of “Sola Scriptura”). As a consequence, Lutheranism recognized only those sacraments which were established by the words of Christ himself (“ab ipso Christus institutis”). Furthermore, it specified their functions differently from Catholic theology.7 Sacraments should be treated as a channel through which God’s grace is given to a man or woman.8 The recipient’s faith enables him or her to receive God’s grace. As a consequence, Lutheran theology has rejected Catholic teaching about sacraments effecting ex opere operato. Luther finally kept two of them: Baptism and Eucharist. We have said that in every sacrament there is a word of divine promise, to be believed by whoever receives the sign, and that the sign alone cannot be a Hotz, R., Sakramente im Wechselspiel zwischen Ost und West (Gütersloh: G. Mohn Gütersloh, 1979), p. 89. Napiórkowski, S. C., Solus Christus. Zbawcze pośrednictwo według “Księgi Zgody” (Lublin: RW KUL, 1999), p. 34.

7

8

124

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

sacrament. Nowhere do we read that the man who marries a wife receives any grace of God. There is not even a divinely instituted sign in marriage, nor do we read anywhere that marriage was instituted by God to be a sign of anything. To be sure, whatever takes place in a visible manner can be understood as a figure or allegory of something invisible. But figures or allegories are not sacraments, in the sense in which we use the term.9

For the sake of the ecumenical dialogue it should be made important that the teaching about marriage is determined by the anthropological and theological thinking of both confessions. Theological controversies shouldn’t hide the fact that both Catholics and Lutherans consider marriage to be holy and give it central place in the Economy of Salvation.

The issue of divorce Just as in the case of sacramentology, the teaching about divorces is determined by different theological assumptions. The Catholic doctrine considers as a starting point the principle of indissolubility of marriage, pointing out the teaching of Jesus Christ. In his preaching Jesus unequivocally taught the original meaning of the union of man and woman as the Creator willed it from the beginning: permission given by Moses to divorce one’s wife was a concession to the hardness of hearts. The matrimonial union of man and woman is indissoluble: God himself has determined it “what therefore God has joined together, let no man put asunder” (Mt. 19.6) (CCC 1614).

The properties of marriage, unity and indissolubility are strengthened by its sacramentality. That’s why the Catechism emphasizes: From a valid marriage arises a bond between the spouses which by its very nature is perpetual and exclusive […] Thus the marriage bond has been established by God himself in such a way that a marriage concluded and consummated between baptized persons can never be dissolved. This bond, which results from the free human act of the spouses and their consummation of the marriage, is a reality, henceforth irrevocable, and gives rise to a covenant guaranteed by God’s fidelity. The Church does not have the power to contravene this disposition of divine wisdom (CCC 1638, 1640). Luther, M., Babylonian Captivity of the Church, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1953), pp. 92–107.

9



Catholic and Lutheran Theology of Marriage. Differences and Resemblances 125

At the same time the Code of Canon Law (“Codex Iuris Canonici”) specifies requirements to be fulfilled for an annulment of valid marriage, as its invalidity is, according to the theology of Catholic Church, possible. This can occur even though the ceremony of wedding has taken place. Lack of awareness of either or both of the parties that invalidate a marriage, is of no importance. The Code of Canon Law specifies three circumstances in which marriage is void. The first one occurs in the case of so-called specific diriment impediments, for example age, antecedent or perpetual impotence, consanguinity in any degree of the direct line or in the second degree of the collateral line. The second relates to matrimonial consent, for example to the circumstances in which one is incapable of contracting marriage because of the following reasons: lack of the sufficient use of reason, grave defect of discretion of judgment concerning the essential matrimonial rights and duties mutually to be handed over and accepted, incapability of assuming the essential obligations of marriage due to psychic disorders. The third one refers to the form of a celebration of marriage. Unlike Catholic theology, Lutheranism considers the possibility of divorce. One important remark should be made here: marriage belongs to the realm of government and as such is liable to the state’s law. Thus divorce and its causes belong to secular reality. Nevertheless, despite the first assumption, Lutheranism and Luther himself developed a theological doctrine about divorce. It is determined by the theological principle of “Sola Scriptura” and by Lutheran anthropology. Furthermore, a fact of great importance is that the value of marriage is described by its functions. As mentioned above, marriage is one of the main instruments of God in the battle with the Kingdom of Evil. It should arrange the social structure and at the same time should be the “hospital of lust” as the sexual drive has been recognized as proper to the human nature. Because of its importance, marriage becomes a particular object of the attack of Evil. According to Luther, marriage doesn’t always fulfill its basic functions in the relation between spouses or in its social dimension. That’s why it is sometimes important to choose between the attribute of indissolubility and ability to cope with the task given to marriage by God. According to Luther it is beyond doubt that adultery is the most important cause of divorce. Such a statement is confirmed by the words of Holy Scripture (“Sola Scriptura” again). Lutheranism interprets the words of Christ from Matthew differently from Catholic theology: “It was also said ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a written notice of divorce’. But now I tell you: if a man divorces his wife, for any cause other than her unfaithfulness, then he

126

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

is guilty of making her commit adultery if she marries again; and the man who marries her commits adultery also” (Mt. 5. 31–32). Lutheran theology acknowledges that those words are unambiguous. In the case of adultery, marriage is actually broken. Lack of sexual intercourse is the second situation in which divorce is possible. Two cases were distinguished here: conscious refraining from sexual acts and the perpetual impotence. The third reason for divorce is a malicious desertion of a spouse (Latin: “desertio malitiosa”). Luther declared it to be sometimes worse than adultery, as leaving a husband or wife is a lasting act. Apart from these three main causes of divorce, the Protestant Reformation has also recognized others but without elaborating on them. They mostly relate to the cases of the matrimonial relations which are full of cruelty.

Conclusions Thorough theological scrutiny of both Catholic and Lutheran interpretations of marriage shows different anthropologies lying at their roots. It should be derived from the fundamental struggles of the Protestant Reformation concerning two main subjects: a meaning of God’s grace for the salvation of man and a meaning of Tradition in the Church. That’s why we can speak about the differences today. On the other hand, we can also observe resemblances: for both, Catholics and Lutherans, the main point of the doctrine is the salvation of man by Christ. Marriage is an extremely important component of the economy of salvation. It is vital to stress those resemblances in the ecumenical dialogue. They will really remain fundamental unless we forget that both confessions recognize marriage as a holy gift and also a task given by God.

10

Mixed Marriages in the Antiochian Orthodox Church: An Educational Approach to a Pastoral Challenge Bassam A. Nassif

The problematic Christian faith is primarily developed and nurtured within the family household. Within the past 50 years, human lifestyle in Lebanon has significantly changed, seriously affecting personal and family life. Lebanese society has been exposed to the influence of the new world order characterized by globalization, technological development, and postmodernism. In this new social order, the Orthodox Church in Lebanon and the Middle East has sensed the urgent need to help redeem marriage and family life through formulating marriage preparation sessions. Now, it is the fourth-year anniversary of implementing this project, teaching couples how to live a successful and blessed married life. However, after these four years of experience, some deficiencies in content emerged. One major deficiency is in dealing with mixed marriages, or marriages contracted between Orthodox and non-Orthodox Christian spouses (Roman Catholics, Maronites, or Protestants). Mixed marriages have become allowed in the Orthodox Church through oikonomia since the nineteenth century.1 So, the marriage preparation sessions did not take into account the very challenging problem of educating spouses who are not Orthodox. The particular challenge is as follows: an Orthodox Lebanese man marries a Maronite (Catholic) woman. The children are Orthodox by birth, since, according to the Lebanese law, they follow their The purpose of this paper is to discuss the educational/pastoral dimension of the mixed marriage problem. A detailed article on the various issues of marriage, and especially how the Orthodox Church came to tolerate conducting mixed marriages is found in the excellent article of D. Constantelos, “Marriage in the Greek Orthodox Church,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 22(1), (Winter 1985): 21–7.

1

128

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

father’s religion, since the Lebanese society is still patriarchal. In practice, however, the Maronite spouse endeavors to educate and raise her children in the Catholic faith and its customs. She does not follow her husband’s faith, because of her solid Catholic formation. She tries to take them to a Maronite parish, especially on major feasts such as Palm Sunday and Easter, in order to celebrate the feasts with her family and relatives.2 So, the children of this particular family would be Orthodox by birth and baptism, but not by faith and mentality! This creates confusion in the Christian identity of the family. As a result, we now face generations of “catholicized” Orthodox believers. This situation certainly affects the Orthodox Church in Lebanon, since more than sixty percent of the Orthodox men are marrying Catholic or Maronite women. Moreover, this anomalous religious situation does have negative effects on the unity and stability of the family and its faith growth. Thinking about this big challenge, we ask: what is the wise educational and pastoral approach that ought to be used by the Orthodox Church in Lebanon to deal with the problem of mixed marriages? Since the Orthodox Church is always keen to arm the spouses with the necessary tools, helping them in their marital journey towards holiness and salvation in Christ, this paper attempts to answer the problematic of dealing with mixed marriages in Lebanon. It is the pastoral dimension offered by the Church that needs to be clarified. I will also present the spiritual, social, and religious atmosphere in Lebanon.

Mixed marriages and the unity of the couple In Matthew 19.5 and Mark 10.8, we read that the Lord Jesus Christ emphasizes the words of Genesis 2.24 by quoting them: “The two shall become one flesh.” The expression “one flesh” in the Hebrew sense means one being, including unity in body and spirit, mind and heart. The verse of Malachi 2.24 puts it simply as follows: “Has not [the Lord] made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring.” So the relationship of man and woman joined in marriage is humanly unique since the two lives of the couple become one life, in perfect harmony. In mixed marriages, the Church Some ecumenical figures reckon the introduction of children to both Catholic and Orthodox parishes constitutes a source of enrichment. However, this matter weakens the Christian identity of the family and its belonging to one parish. Also, since the family is Orthodox, the issue of intercommunion is raised when participating in a Divine Liturgy outside of the Orthodox parish.

2



Mixed Marriages in the Antiochian Orthodox Church

129

faces the dilemma of sacramentally uniting “in one flesh” a man and a woman having a faith not in unity with the other! A mixed marriage is bringing together a couple in communion without common faith. As a result, we often see a crisis developing within the family. The question of such marriages has several dimensions, namely the social, cultural, canonical, and pastoral dimensions. The pastoral dimension includes the support that the Church ought to offer to the couple for their religious education and the formation of their children, and helping them to develop their Christian identity and Church membership. The family needs to develop particular religious norms that affect their various relationships: the spouses (the husband and wife) and their immediate families (the fathers- and mothersin-law). All these dimensions are summarized in the one question that is always asked by the mixed marriage couple: “We love each other, but please teach us how to live our Christian faith in our family, since we come from different Christian backgrounds?” So, it is important to evaluate the efforts made so far in this matter.

The structure of the established marriage preparation course A team of 12 priests (including myself) held several meetings over a period of six months in order to formulate a marriage preparation course. The goal of this educational project was to equip all engaged couples with essential tools, helping them to face marital crises that could lead to conflict and divorce. The team studied the current cases of divorce according to the files of the spiritual courts. It also discussed the social challenges and threats affecting family life today, and the religious atmosphere that permeates Lebanese society. A marriage preparation course was formulated. After receiving the formal approval of the Metropolitan of the Archdiocese of Mount Lebanon, Archbishop George Khodre, this course became a mandatory course for all couples preparing for marriage. The Archbishop decreed that no wedding celebration license must be issued if the couple does not attend the course. Both the faithful and clergy of the largest Archdiocese in Lebanon were very enthusiastic about this educational project. The Orthodox Church has established marriage preparation centers in various archdioceses in Lebanon. The marriage preparation course is divided into four sessions, as follows. The first session is about the general preparation of marriage. It includes a general introduction to different dimensions of marital

130

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

life, such as the work of the spouses, the use of money, their affection for each other, their spiritual life, and the paperwork needed to be filled in for registering the marriage. In the second session, the couples discuss the sexual, psychological, emotional and social dimensions to marital life. The third session deals with the conflict-resolution techniques, listening and communication skills. This session discusses how a couple can deal with differences and misunderstandings that occur during their married life, and how they may use these differences as a way to grow and mature together. The fourth and final session presents the teaching of the Church about the Sacrament of Marriage. This session explains the rite of matrimony in the Orthodox Church and its symbols, the meaning of a Church sacrament or mysterion, the Scriptural basis for marriage, and how to make the marital home a small church. In all these four sessions, practical advice and examples are given. This catechesis presupposes that the couple is Orthodox Christian. No information, however, is given about how two Christians coming from two different Christian denominations can actually raise a family having one faith and one parish commitment. Why would this be a challenge to teach about? Why do mixed marriages constitute a challenging issue for the Orthodox Church in Lebanon, Syria and throughout the Middle East? Studying the Lebanese demography and social fabric helps to clarify this question.

The Lebanese demography First, it is important to describe the unique fabric of the Lebanese society. The total population of Lebanon is currently about four and a half million people. It is constituted of 17 different denominations coming from the two main monotheistic faiths: Christianity and Islam. These denominations are officially recognized by the government of Lebanon. Statistics reveal the following information about the makeup of the Lebanese population. The adherents of Islam constitute 59.7 percent of the total Lebanese population. They are distributed mainly in three major denominations: the Shiites, the Sunnites, and the Druze. There is also a minority of Isma’ilite and Alawite communities. Christians make up about 39 percent of the population. They are divided into the following denominations: 19 percent are Maronite Catholics, 10 percent are Antiochian Orthodox, 5 percent are Melkite Catholic (or uniates), 3 percent are Armenian Orthodox, and the remaining 5.3 percent are Syrian Catholics,



Mixed Marriages in the Antiochian Orthodox Church

131

Armenian Catholics, Syrian Orthodox, Roman Catholics (Latins), Chaldeans, Assyrians, Copts, Protestants, and other.3 The Christian population in Lebanon is under the influence of the Maronite Patriarchate which has strong prescense in the media (Télé Lumière and Nour Sat TV Channels and several radio stations, in addition to several periodic publications of magazines and newsletters). This well-attended media influences the way all Lebanese Christians think about their faith and Christian living in general. Both the Orthodox and Catholic churches view marriage as a sacrament instituted by God, wherein the grace of the Holy Spirit comes on both spouses leading them to union with each other and with God in Christ Jesus. Nevertheless, the Orthodox and Catholic churches differ on a number of issues regarding marriage and marital life. The Roman Catholic theologians emphasize the idea that sexual relations are a part of the fallen world and considered sinful if not for the sole purpose of begetting children within marriage. The Orthodox Church views sexual relations not only for begetting children but also as an expression of mutual love and harmony among spouses. Thus, a married couple who did not beget children because of a certain physical sterility which was discovered only after contracting marriage are not legally allowed to divorce in the Orthodox Church. It is however a case for the annulment of marriage in the Catholic canon law. Moreover, Catholics are generally influenced by the Augustinian teaching on this issue, especially that the original sin is inherited through the sexual act. Also, the Catholic church forbids the use of birth control in all circumstances, while the Orthodox is not against a mature and responsible use of birth control by married spouses in some circumstances. So the Catholic media influence all Christians, especially the Orthodox, teaching them the aforementioned Catholic views on marriage. In the Middle East, tragic historical developments occurred as a result of the Islamic conquest and the subsequent Ottoman rule for 400 years. The Muslims viewed the Christian churches as juridical entities required to govern the civil laws of their adherents. Therefore, and to this day, the different religious denominations in Lebanon are each responsible for conducting weddings for their adherents. These denominations proclaim the legality of weddings on behalf of the Lebanese government. Each of the seventeen different denominations, whether Christians or Muslims, are given legal rights to deal with all

The information is taken from the website of the Central Intelligence Agency, “The World Factbook” under “Middle East: Lebanon—last updated December 9, 2012,” https://www.cia.gov/ library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/le.html (accessed 12 December 2012).

3

132

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

matters and disputes pertaining to personal status, such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, and child custody. On the other hand, the Lebanese government does not conduct civil marriages on its territory, even though it legally accepts any civil marriage contracted outside the country. Most Lebanese who choose to have a civil marriage need to travel to the island of Cyprus, the closest country to Lebanon which conducts such kinds of marriages. Some Lebanese citizens who are not religious are “obliged” to have a religious ceremony in Lebanon. As a result, many voices have recently called on Lebanese Parliamentarians to formulate laws allowing for the option of choosing civil marriage. Social views on marriage have dramatically shifted away from the traditional norms of family life into a new “modern” reality, a reality that is less religious and more liberal, as we present in the next paragraphs.

The traditional Lebanese family life The traditional family structure in Lebanon has undergone tremendous pressures, which have led to a slow but steady change in gender role, religious adherence, and family values. The age at marriage, roles of husbands and wives, child-rearing policies within the household, and attitude to marriage have all changed significantly. The change started in the last quarter of the last century and continues with large leaps today. This newly developed view on marriage and family life permeates Lebanese society. 4 The old Lebanese Christian family structure was, and still is, patriarchal. The role of the father was as the one who brings in money and therefore is the sole property owner on whom the entire family depends. Child-rearing practices were generally characterized by the severe discipline imposed by the father and overprotection by the mother. The mother’s role was that of mother and homemaker. Parental control, and especially that of the father, did not stop at the age of 18 (age of maturity), but continued as long as the child lived in the father’s residence, which means until the child married. Also, it was expected that the female spouse come under the control of her in-laws. Fifty years ago, many women in Lebanon supported their mother at home, or engaged in the work of agriculture and farming. A very limited number of women went to work outside the home, and the majority of those worked Much information on this issue is given in the book by Edwin Terry Prothro and Najib Diab Lutfy, Changing family patterns in the Arab East (Beirut: American University of Beirut, 1974).

4



Mixed Marriages in the Antiochian Orthodox Church

133

as nurses, medical doctors, school teachers, or secretaries. The majority were educated and earned high school diplomas, but only a minority went to study in a university. The reason is that, upon reaching maturity age, women were naturally expected to get married and bear children. Before marriage, women lived with their parents, and were not in direct contact with men except those among their immediate relatives, close family friends, and young men of the village or neighborhood. Very often, marriage was thought of more as a matter of joining interests between two families than of romantic attachment, and of procreation. Thus, many women and men were married through a family-arranged agreement. Other marriages used to happen when a man looked for a spouse within the village, preferably the closest eligible relative within the family, and within his religious denomination.

The shift in the Lebanese society affecting married life The social situation described above has totally changed. A major reason for this change is that Lebanese women have entered the workforce and become equally involved in the educational, social, political, cultural, and economic life. As a result, women became independent of their parents’ household. In earning their living through their work salaries, they became more detached from their family household. Their career brought them self-fulfillment. The major involvement of women of different religious backgrounds led them to be in direct contact with men in society every day. In addition, young women at work and in universities came in direct contact with young men. Romantic marriages increased. Young men and women became involved in sexual relationships before marriage, a matter which was unacceptable in society in the past. Consequently, family-arranged marriages that were the normal marriage arrangement in the twentieth century slowly declined. It became a sort of social shame to declare that an engagement was pre-arranged. All this resulted in a great increase in mixed marriage. The data which I gathered from different spiritual courts in Lebanon reveal that the increase in mixed marriages went from 10 percent 50 years ago, to 60 percent today. The majority of mixed marriages are between Orthodox and Maronite spouses. This situation is not just limited to the Orthodox living in Lebanon but also extends to those Lebanese living abroad, in America, Europe and Australia.

134

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

The ecumenical dimension of mixed marriages Up to the year 1996, the Eastern Catholic churches used to require a signed pledge from the Catholic spouse to baptize and raise his or her children in the Catholic church parishes.5 On October 14, 1996, a meeting was held in Deir Sayedat al Najat – Shurfa, Lebanon, between the primates of the Orthodox and Catholic Churches in the Middle East. The agreement that was issued upon this meeting declared that the Christian identity of the family is based on the father’s denomination, since we live in a patriarchal society. After receiving the approval of the Vatican, the Catholic churches in the Middle East no longer require the taking of the pledge by the Catholic spouse marrying the Orthodox. Thus the groom who is Orthodox has the responsibility to baptize his children in the Orthodox Church and raise them in an Orthodox parish, helping them to develop an Orthodox Christian identity.6 This important document reminded the faithful that intercommunion is not yet achieved since the churches have not yet reached this state of unity. So the mixed marriages could not be a way of practicing Eucharistic communion. Marriage is neither a way to Christian unity nor to having syncretistic views about faith and religious practice! Also, one cannot avoid talking about doctrinal issues which are not agreed upon among various Christian denominations.7 The spouse has to follow her husband’s denomination and parish.

The challenging education on mixed marriages The new social situation is alarming for the Orthodox Church, since it affects present and future generations of Orthodox Christians. Can a marriage preparation class regulate the issue of mixed marriages? One may suggest that special classes ought to be given to the non-Orthodox Christian woman who is marrying the Orthodox man. Will this, however, really affect the mentality in See the Codex Canonum Ecclesiarum Orientalium (= CCEO), promulgated in 1990 (Code of Canons for the Catholic Oriental Churches). The canons that deal with mixed marriages are 813–16 as found in http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG1199/_INDEX.HTM, (accessed 20 December 2012). 6 Emil Kabba (ed.), Mixed Marriages: Theological Basis, Challenges, and Pastoral Horizons (Beirut: Publications of La Sagesse University, 2012), pp. 241–4. 7 This style is now used within the Ecumenical dialogues, especially with the Orthodox-Catholic dialogue: The plan is to avoid conflicting issues and to work on strengthening the common understanding in faith and practice, in an atmosphere of mutual respect and appreciation. Many see this attitude as a positive way of dealing with the issue of mixed marriages. However, some doctrinal issues, such as original sin, cannot be avoided, since they are reflected in the way spouses express, for example, their intimate relationship. 5



Mixed Marriages in the Antiochian Orthodox Church

135

which the Christians were brought up and which prepares them to teach their Catholic faith to their offspring, regardless of their husband’s religious affiliation? The Maronite Catholic churchgoers are normally about 80 percent, which means they have high religious commitment and practice. The challenging problem lies in the way Lebanese Maronites view religion. For them, faith is not just a personal matter. It has to do with family belonging, and even with demographic belonging and existence. In addition, talking about differences between Christian denominations in a confessional society such as Lebanon stirs much social tension and misunderstanding. There is a general social view that no differences exist between Orthodox and Catholics, and that everyone ought to become Catholic! On the other hand, teaching and stressing the differences that exist doctrinally between the Orthodox and the Catholics will lead to a social accusation of fundamentalism. Do we need to recall Canons from the first millennium requiring a non-Orthodox woman to be baptized before her marriage to an Orthodox man? Such baptisms have occurred in the past, but the experience proved that in many cases the baptized spouse did not undergo inner change in conviction.8 Requiring the spouse to sign a paper pledging to raise her children according to the faith of her husband (the Orthodox Faith) does not lead to solving the problem. The Church cannot force anyone to believe, but respects human freedom as a sacred gift from God.9 Besides, the Church cannot, practically, control each household. In order to bring the Catholic spouse closer to the Orthodox Church, Father John Meyendorff offers the following suggestion. He calls for the reestablishment of an old practice, which is conducting the wedding service within the Eucharistic celebration (the Divine Liturgy). This is a theological solution, as it reflects the deep meaning of marriage as unity “in Christ” through the partaking of the Holy Communion. In doing so, Father John insists that the non-Orthodox spouse needs to be catechized and baptized before marriage. Practically, however, the social and spiritual atmosphere in Lebanon, as previously presented, does not permit such an option of baptizing each non-Orthodox spouse. The point is: how can the Church properly care for the couple not just before marriage but also after the wedding ceremony, that A recent discussion on this issue is found in the article written by Archimandrite Grigorios Papathomas, “Un communautarisme ecclésial ouvert: Mariages dispars-mixtes et conversions d’adultes,” in Annals of St. John of Damascus Institute of Theology 7 (Balamand, Lebanon: St. John of Damascus Institute of Theology, 2006), pp. 71–90. 9 John Meyendorff, Marriage: An Orthodox Perspective (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1975), pp. 58–9. 8

136

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

is, being present in their daily challenges and journeys of faith? Introducing symbols and facts about the Orthodox faith and family life, within a marriage preparation class, has proved to be insufficient and lacking. A study on the education of a mixed marriage spouse done by Father Charles Joanides of the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America led to an “Orthodox ecological developmental grounded theory of interfaith marriages.”10 The aim of a grounded theory is to generate or discover a theory from data systematically obtained from social research. Certainly such a grounded study, if done locally in Lebanon, would contribute to a better understanding of the problem and its solution. A mixed marriage is first of all a pastoral issue. Its consequences have a great effect on the future of the Church in Lebanon. Educating the Orthodox faithful on the tenets of the Orthodox Faith and their personal responsibility to live by them is a challenging issue. Resolving it would be an experience of learning and growth.

A pastoral and educational response In my case study, I have presented the challenges resulting from mixed marriages in Lebanese society. Mixed marriages continue to be a source of anxiety for Orthodox Church leaders, and a significant pastoral challenge facing the Orthodox Church in Lebanon. The challenge consists in how to “make Orthodox” the spouses that are not Orthodox Christians, and most especially the Maronites (Roman Catholics). According to Lebanese social custom, the female spouse ought to follow her husband’s faith. The problem is that the Maronite Church has a very strong influence on Lebanese society. Politically, the Maronite Church endeavors to preserve a strong demographic presence in Lebanon, and one way she does so is by instilling in her believers a sense of total and exclusive belonging to her as a Church, that is to her teaching and liturgical practice. So the Maronite spouse married to an Orthodox believer would not practically follow her husband’s faith. On the other hand, a well-arranged marriage preparation course has been established in the Orthodox Archdiocese of Mount Lebanon, helping couples to manage different marital life issues. The marriage preparation classes have Father Charles Joanides, “A Systematic Conceptualization of Intermarriages in the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America,” in The Orthodox Parish in America: Faithfulness to the Past and Responsibility for the Future, (Anton C. Vrame (ed.) Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Press, 2003), pp. 191–208.

10



Mixed Marriages in the Antiochian Orthodox Church

137

used a “classical” method of teaching involving giving information about daily marital life challenges, and explaining the liturgical and theological meaning of the sacrament of marriage. The classes, however, have not been open to discussing mixed marriages issues such as raising children in the faith of one of the spouses. The Lebanese cultural and social fabric that has formed Lebanese society after many wars in the last century created sensitive barriers against such discussions. In Lebanon, religion has often been used as a tool to fight others. The children become the victims of the religious tension between spouses. Sometimes during their clashes as a result of their continuous disagreements, one of the spouses may use some issues within the religious affiliation of the other in order to attack this religious affiliation and humiliate the other. Having these religious, cultural, and social obstacles in Lebanon, the question is how could the Orthodox Church help two Christian spouses coming from two different Christian denominations to be able to actually raise a family and live one faith and have one parish commitment? First of all, what is the role of the priest and the parish to which the couple belongs? The Orthodox Christian parish priest does not have the legal, cultural or religious power or tools to change the Lebanese tension and social fabric. Thus, what are the educational methods that need to be sought and explored? The wellknown classical educational model of delivering to students a set of instructions and information to follow has certainly failed to help non-Orthodox spouses to live the Orthodox faith. The spouses are well convinced of their non-Orthodox Christian way of life, and are committed to live it. Also, Orthodoxy, or Christianity, does not oblige anyone to follow its teaching and practice. The Church respects and preserves the dignity of each person and his or her joy and well-being. Therefore, the needed key to overcome this challenge is the spouses’ willingness to explore the Orthodox faith. This willingness may open the door wide for the spouses to have a change of mind with regards to Orthodoxy. This change, or metanoia, must occur in the depth of their inner heart and mind. The alternative educational method must lead the spouses to undergo a personal transformation, directing them to love the Orthodox faith and worship. So, what is the tool that a parish priest may use for achieving this special purpose? The model of iconographic education, developed by Dr. Anton Vrame in his book The Educating Icon, is the best model for this challenging issue in parish life. In his book, Dr. Vrame affirms that: “The aim of iconic catechesis is to nurture, instruct, and direct each member of the community of faith in Christian living […] so that each person grows ‘in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ’ (2 Pet. 3.18) […] to become an icon, a living

138

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

image of God […] reflecting a particular way – the Christ like way – of knowing and living in the world, hence “iconic knowing and living.”’11 So this iconic knowing and living leads to the needed transformation. What is the process to achieve this “transformation?” It is a process similar to the one of creating an icon, and it involves using successive layers which could be cultural, social, personal, etc. In iconography, this process ends by creating an icon of God’s Kingdom. In anthropology, this process leads to the growth of both spouses in knowing and living the Orthodox faith, transforming them into living icons of Christ’s Kingdom. What are the different layers of this process? We have the social, personal and parochial levels. In the social layer, the iconic model calls for a very relational and interactive action. For example, the priest ought to strive to create a Christ-centered parish or community which reflects the life in Christ. He ought to create an atmosphere of variety and unity through a strong community life. In the parish, the priest offers various interesting opportunities that the couple may choose from. These things could be various ministries and occasions for fellowship and service, both social and religious. Calling the parishioners to be involved in these various ministries in the Church is inviting them to action, and to activate their role as the people of God and the body of Christ, through vibrant relationships and community service. One example would be the following. The parish may organize workshops on family living skills that teach couples how to establish a family with healthy relationships. Couples are usually attracted to these kinds of workshops, since they help heal certain misunderstandings the couples have with each other in the beginning of their married life, allowing them to grow in love. Other workshops could include child-rearing policies within the household, which is a very important topic especially for mothers in modern Lebanese society. Also these workshops help develop a sense of community and fellowship within the parish. In the personal layer, the parish priest, as part of his outreach ministry to his faithful, ought to organize personal visits to the couples, consecrating a special time for them. These visits ought not to have, at first, the purpose of classical education, detailing the tenets of the Orthodox Church. Rather, the priest’s aim ought to be the establishment of a closer personal relationship with the couple, knowing more about their life, talents, challenges, successes, hobbies, Anton Vrame, The Educating Icon: Teaching Wisdom and Holiness in the Orthodox Way (Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1999), p. 63.

11



Mixed Marriages in the Antiochian Orthodox Church

139

expressing his care and love to them, and answering any personal needs they may have. Iconic living is having an active presence of both the human and the divine, and a dynamic interaction. The active presence of the priest, by virtue of his priestly function, brings both the human and the divine, as the icon does. In his visit, the priest may inform them about the different programs the parish may organize that are of interest to them. Although he may not find an immediate positive reaction from them, the pastor must not push them to participate in the parochial activities, workshops, or worship of the Church. In Christ’s spirit of freedom, the priest may kindly call them to “come and see.” His main goal is to reach the couple where they are and touch their hearts through his active presence and care, accepting them where they are on their terms, even if their terms are not where he desires them to be. As each icon is unique, so also each couple’s relationship is unique, and each partner’s personality and character as well. Every person is made in God’s image, having the gift of freedom. Each person, however, is living in a fallen world and growing in His likeness. Living a married life means living a relational life, and sharing in God’s creativity, and being in his love. Growing in God-likeness, through a life of prayer and witness is a continuous process of transformation toward divinization or theosis. So another way of icon living is inciting a successful “icon” of one joyful, faithful and committed married couple from the parish to befriend the mixed marriage couple. This living icon of a happy married couple committed to the parish may attract the mixed marriage couple to know more about the beauty and depth of the Orthodox faith and life. As looking at an icon may kindle and awaken the heart, so also a living icon of a married couple may transform other couples, leading them to the love of the Church. Finally, as an icon is written by prayer and the creativity/inspiration and perseverance of the icon writer, so is the work of the priest with the couple. This pastoral work demands a lot of creativity, personal attention, patience, and most especially continuous prayer. Asking for God’s help, allowing him to work through his grace and love, is essential, so that he may write this marital icon of the spouses and hang it in the abode of his Kingdom. The sacramental act of unity given to the spouses in the liturgical service of matrimony is a potential, a divine seed sown in grace, and formed in the lives of the spouses through this holistic, iconic model of education. I believe that this pastoral and educational model presented above, if well practiced in the Orthodox Church in Lebanon, can yield much fruit, transforming mixed marriages from being a problematic issue to a cause for invigorating parish life and for making the couple’s home a little church.

Part Three

11

The French Family in All Conditions: From the Best to the Worst? Michel Cozic, Centre Lenain de Tillemont, Paris

Introduction1 If we think seriously, some day we humans have to ask two important questions: Is there a way in our life? How to lead it? And, observing the commandment of Christ to love, we consider our own individuality and also that of others. Now, in the context of the current crisis in society and in the economy, many institutions are hit, especially the Occidental Family. However, the family has been for a long time a reference-institution and a place of personal blossoming where, in spite of its imperfections, everyone could find an answer to the questions above. Is it still possible? With regard to the French and Christian (Catholic) family, we try to answer using the following considerations. After some elucidation of the notion “crisis,” we make some constatations and indicate some hopes which seem to us very real. We give some numbers and dates, but also some views from our experience in the preparation of engaged couples, in the Public Education and social action spheres. Perhaps we seem “to break in some opened doors” … by which sometimes it is well to come back to an important basis!

Anthropologic crisis in society and in the family On the notion “crisis” As anthropology is the study of the whole of mankind (philosophy, psychology, history, morality, economy etc…), we suggest two meanings: To my friend Elisabeth Mostini—head of the religious centre of La Rochelle (France)—brave family mother in the face of of rough difficulties.

1

144

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

a) The French dictionary, Robert, speaks at first about “a major step in the evolution of things, conceptions and circumstances” (cf. the recent Arabic revolution in Tunisia or in Libya, the crisis of the subprimes in USA…); then it speaks about “the breaking of the balance” (cf. in 2008 the international crisis of the banks…); finally it speaks about “crisis in matters of consciousness” (cf. a sudden passion between married people, or the distress of a whole community in the face of delinquency and violence…). b) In the wake of Hannah Arendt, Myriam Revault d’Allonnes distinguished three levels for a crisis: the first, “a sudden and rough shift” (cf. road accident or redundancy…), the second, “a moment of truth” (cf. convictions in front of an unlawful reality or an ineluctable divorce…), the third, “an unforseeable and spectacular finality” (cf. a crushing illness or handicap, a suicide because of insolvency or emotional tragedy …). But— and it’s very interesting—in the most important crisis, there is a point of no return which requires the community to launch a new inquiry, and to be prepared for a rebound when the other and “old” solutions have failed.2

Society needs to transmit moral values As the basis for a stable society, we observe morality and the family. a) About morality, usually we distinguish a personal morality inspired by “the voice of consciousness,” which sometimes gives us … a bad feeling before or after an action! There is also a collective morality: it concerns the worthy rules of life in society; for example, since 1789, we have in France the famous slogan: “Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité,” values which are in fact basic aspirations. But these values must always be defended or restored because we live in a society where prevail good and evil, right and wrong, and also, more and more, a tyrannical and insane economy (cf. the rapid settlement at all costs, the search of personal or national profits …), which are, as we say, “crisogenes” with serious repercussions for the family. b) The family is often said to be the “basic cell of society”; indeed we have known the fundamental rôle of the patriarchal family for a long time, and it is still important in the Middle East and in Asia; but in the Occident there is more than the conjugal family (father, mother, children). There Myriam Revault d’Allonnes: “Hannah Arendt penseur de la crise,” in Études, September 2011, pp. 197–206.

2



The French Family in All Conditions

145

now appears a new family with couples not engaged and against the marriage-institution; moreover, the family is no more a unity of mutual support, but an economic unity of consumer goods and an urban lifestyle, and that has distended the bonds in the family. So, in order to remember the suggestion of Hannah Arendt about crisisrebound—but without forgetting the the sound traditions of the past—we say that there are “des ruptures instauratrices”3 (breakings which establish), which therefore give us hope!

Some worrying views? For many years—the phenomenon has even increased since 1960—there has been no longer only one kind of family, but several kinds of family, like: heterosexual married or in cohabitation with or without children, monoparental families with only the mother usually, blended families living together with different levels of bounds, “unisex” couples, adoption or foster families, and more and more divorces … So, in order to understand these fundamental developments in society, we propose to observe three viewpoints.

Relationships evolution in the couple In the Ancient Roman Civilization,4 there already existed marriage and cohabitation. But it was the Council of Trent (from 1545 to 1563) in Italy which set up public marriage in church. The following dates concern only France. In 1792, The French State established the civil title of marriage which could also be celebrated by a “sworn” Catholic priest; in 1804, the Prime Consul Buonaparte imposed sanctions on priests marrying couples who were not first married by the Mayor. But that didn’t prevent cohabitation during the whole nineteenth century and beyond, even more in the proletarian and universal working class: we have just to read some novels by the writer Emile Zola, such as “l’Assommoir” or “Germinal.” In 1834, a divorce law was passed which was very hard on the erring wife! Indeed she was regarded as being unable to conduct her personal

Michel de Certeau, La faiblesse de croire, (Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1987), Ch. 2, pp. 39–46. Cf. the book of Jean Gaudemet, Le mariage en Occident, (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1987), with above a canon lawyer’s viewpoint.

3 4

146

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

affairs, except for women in the upper classes! However, in 1938 a law allowed wives to have a personal bank account, in spite of the great reluctance of banks! After the war of 1939–45, women were given the right to vote, and only in 1985 was there complete equality between men and women, even if the actual reality is far from ideal! Since 1970, cohabitation has been recognized as “a stable union” (we count 2.5 million couples in cohabitation and 12 millions married). Finally, in 1999, the heterosexual and homosexual PACS (Civil Pact of Solidarity) was voted for, but with no success expected.

Relationships evolution in the family a) For a long time, children—except in the upper classes, and, even then, only boys—were no more than things, often abandoned; indeed, there were for them some orphanages (at monasteries) in the eighth century; only as recently as the seventeenth century was the institution established by the priest Vincent de Paul. Otherwise, at this time only the children born to married couples were recognized—always in the upper classes— except the royal bastard children legitimized by the king: so, the French king Henry IV—called “le Vert Galant”—legitimized 64 children by him!   Concerning unmarried mothers, since 1972 the Law has not differentiated between legitimate and illegitimate children. In brief, over the course of centuries, society has weighed heavily on children according to their social conditions of birth!   Also, in the connection between biological and legal boundaries, serious problems in the bioethics appeared, with procreation by surrogate mothers, or the children “born under X” and the problems created by adoption. b) Evolution between parents and children. Formerly, the supreme authority of the father, called “the paternal power,” was upheld in French Common Law (1804). But, in 1989, children were more protected because fathers could forfeit their rights. In 1920, “rights of the children” were outlined, and in 1970 a law was passed which gave the same rights to the father and the mother; in 1989, the “international agreement of children’s rights” was promulgated, but it was ambiguous because children were treated as quasi adults! In fact, gradually, the educational principle of authority became an “accompaniment” among others. This is why there are two different attitudes—“to make society” and “to make a family”—and these have an impact on Christian (Catholic) families.



The French Family in All Conditions

147

And then, what about the Catholic family?5 a) a swift overview, with some paradoxes. Fifty-one percent of the population declare themselves Catholics (45 percent of men, 55 percent of women), but the practice is irregular: 30 percent turn up to baptisms, marriages and funerals; they attend to Christmas and Easter celebrations, which are considered as important in family life; 25 percent say personal prayers, 10 percent are militants in the Church: for example, parish activities, CCFD (Catholic Commitee against hunger and for Development). This minority is aware of the lack of priests; for them a sound foundation and the transmission of the value of faith are necessary. b) Fifty-two percent, only, agree that God exists: God is perceived as “a strength, an energy, a spirit”, or “God with which I can be personally in a relationship”; the first perception is—unfortunately for us—more important than the second for most of them. Many also wish to have discussions concerning other people’s religion, marriage of priests and women’s ordination. These views can seem to be worrying or paradoxical; so, can we appropriate this conclusion of the investigation? As was said by Ramon Panikar, Jesuit theologian and a native of India: “There are several faces by which to climb the mountain, but the mountain is always the same!”; and when the clouds are scattered, perhaps we can have some interesting and hopeful viewpoints!

Some hopes or despairs? We propose at first some recent views on young people and excluded persons; then, from our experience and a paper written by a theologian friend and his team, we speak of a sensible preparation for marriage, and a stable sexual relationship between the (un)married, in the light of the Bible.

About young people a) Sometimes they can shock adults with their reactions. But these reactions are perhaps excusable, because, in the mass-media and even in discussions We partly use an investigation headed “Les catholiques examinés à la loupe” in the review Le monde des religions, January 2007, pp. 23–38.

5

148

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

with adults, all kinds of problems, tensions and tragedies are shown before them. Also, their indignation at bad and hypocritical behaviour is reasonable … if they don’t use destructive violence! b) Often when alone they search for a way of life, even “challenging values,” as sometimes they say. They also look at sincere bounds and they militate with passion about the environment; they wish ardently for some autonomy and they are looking for the Truth. They seek Truth by discovering and experimenting for themselves; but, because many young people are generous, they love those adults who are good and honest witnesses in their actions.   In terms of religion, they don’t like a religion of sacrifice, but often prefer an emotional religion (cf. the great gatherings in Taizé or the JMJ, a worldwide group of Christian young people); they prefer concrete actions to address hunger, freedom, and human rights and admit that faith in Christ must be lived among all mankind and in fellowship, following the example of Christ in the Gospel.

About excluded persons, these poor people who call out to us … a) Facing a quasi structural poverty—so a source of insecurity—the poor have a tendency to withdraw into themselves or their family. But often they are very aware of their dignity and a lack of respect towards their rights, as this woman cried in 1991: “You want us to be responsible citizens, but how is it possible when we live in a state of anxiety almost every day in your modern society, which is unable to give us a sufficient livelihood?”6 Only a real and respectful intervention can take these people to a whole and true citizenship by a suitable and properly remunerated job. b) The excluded persons can apply, sometimes without consideration and in their own way, the famous sentence: “help yourself and Heaven will help you,” because they can help more deprived people; so, they act according to the Love commandment of Christ: “As you did to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me” (Mt. 25.40). Also “travelling people,” near to our town, try to give their children every chance of succeeding when they agree to send them regularly to school. After all, these people belong to “the great human family”! In the book of Marie-France Freynet, Les médiations du travail social, (Lyon: Éditions de la Chronique Sociale, 1995), p. 41.

6



The French Family in All Conditions

149

“The family, key of a fragile happiness”7 a) After it emerged that 77 percent of people who were questioned (940 adults aged 18 years old and over) belonged to a “one person family,” the reporter first asked them: “Why are there more broken families, more divorces and separations than before?”; they gave various answers: People make less effort to stay together (36 percent); the women work more and are more independent (45 percent); there is less hypocrisy, so people don’t force themselves to stay together (36 percent); there are more material difficulties because of unemployment and housing (33 percent); people confuse love with passion (18 percent); it’s more complicated to educate children (14 percent); people live longer (8 percent).   To the following question: “What could help people to stay together?,” they answered: A total change of mentality (33 percent); external help for people so that they can discuss their problems (28 percent); the raising in status of the marriage-institution (15 percent); better preparation for the obligations of marriage (12 percent); also that the media should give a happy picture of family life (12 percent). b) From all these answers, we can underline a paradox: the family holds “the key of happiness,” but it’s also the “crossroads of all fragilities,” and family sociologists say that the reign of zapping, the consumer society, the “all at once” and the ideology of “me first” explain faster legal separations. And there is another paradox: couples claim “to live at the same time in conjugal harmony and with personal development.” Concerning the answer which prescribes “a total change of mentality,” the French philosopher Emmanuel Mounier said: “revolution will be moral or not.”8   The person who coordinated this survey concludes with this serious but ironic advice: “Each couple must be inventive and day by day be ‘knitting’ his own conjugal pattern, even if it means referring to the advertising slogan of a famous firm of household electrical appliances: ‘Built to last’!” (M. Auffret-Pericone).

It’s the title of an investigation from the great Catholic newspaper La Croix (12 September 2011) as the conclusion of a reflection begun in November 2010 by the French bishops with four questions: “What are for families the keys of happiness? Why is it more difficult today to build the family life? How can society help families? How can the Gospel light the way for people who wish to live with a firm faith?” 8 He recalled this advice from Charles Peguy (1873–1914) in his book, Révolution personnaliste et communautaire, (réédité à Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1961). 7

150

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

Human and familial love requires preparation a) To a preparation of marriage. This is one of the wishes formulated in the answers to the survey, together with commitment. It seems that we can into this direction going to do with the future married some reports, from this, essential, and about what trainer couples try to certify: “Love gives a sense – otherwise the sense – to the life”; then to do noticed them that the loving vocabulary between them have a sacred connotation, when they speak about “adoration” between husband and wife, or “eternal love,” so much their love is stronger; or also, when they write beautiful letters of love, or rather now send many electronic messages (SMS)! So they will be more able to understand that the Gospel is the most beautiful letters of love ever sent to each one and to all humanity! From these observations, the training couples can talk about—always by taking examples from the Bible—patience and forgiveness, these touchstones of real love. So they show them that there is no love without crisis or suffering (a difficult birth, a serious unfaithfulness, material worries…), and that Christ showed his total love as far as the cross. Another question is often asked by engaged couples: “How do you make the marriage last?” Now some of these couples have lived together already for a long time before asking to be married in church, even with children; but sometimes divorce only one or two years after! It’s perhaps a belief in the “magic” power of the sacrament of marriage. Yet, we insist during the preparation on the fact that a church wedding is not a talisman. Even if the couples are “connected” to the love of Christ and to the Church, marriage should always to conquer through mutual respect and blooming. Conjugal harmony needs effort by each one. b) To a stable sexual relationship of the couple. Some biblical and doctrinal assertions show that this dimension of existence, as a source of pleasure and personal blooming, definitely forms part of a person, and also that God said: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Gen. 1.26); better, God, by Christ’s incarnation, became lodged in a human and sexual body, but “without sin” (Rom. 8.3). God is a Being of relation and love who “teaches to the couple to have a mutual relationship where each one gives and receives”; Then according to this truth founded on God and the human reality, the theologian and his or her team insist on four criteria:



The French Family in All Conditions

151

— “Each distinct individual” (Altérité, in French) must respect the other, enter into a mutual exchange with him, and devote himself to the other with understanding, care and fondness; and that cannot be a mechanical affair! — Sexual advances can be “a way to holiness,” which always engages with the other’s freedom, and a relationship reflecting the relationship with the wholly Other, who became near to each one. — Fertility is “one of the four bases of the christian marriage, together with freedom, fidelity and solidarity […] and because it is a sacrament, the constituent elements are also sacramental: meals together, carnal embraces, welcoming of the hosts, children, education, mutual attention, and even crisis and reconciliation.”9 Here is a demanding program but it leads to fulness. — Deprivation of oneself is another criterion of the lasting quality of marriage, the couple dispossessing themselves with patience, forgiveness, and in a spirit of service—following the Christ of Easter—to better meet the needs of each other. Finally, “sexuality is a way, sometimes obscure and turbulent, to noble and blooming holiness, in answer to the call of the Gospel.”10

Conclusion So, we can say that the family must continually reinvent itself, as it appears to be a reality which is fundamentally humano–divine. It can be, indeed, a place of great happiness and also of pains, encounters and tears, violence and affection; but it is often the place where love, life, and death find the answer to the two questions first asked. We have seen that the modern French family—and Catholic—seems more frail in a society which is in a deep and multidimensional crisis, of which we understand standpoints and values. “To make society’” and “to make the family” will always represent a multidimensional adventure, especially when we try to give it a spiritual dimension, a both firm and flexible face to the human nature. Around 1900, the French author André Gide wrote: “Families, I hate you!”; but we think that we should rather say: “Families, I have you and I love you!” We thank very much our friend and theologian Jean Rigal with his team of Christian couples, whose reflections we have used in this difficult matter, which should not be taboo. 10 Xavier Lacroix, Le mariage, tout simplement, (Paris: Éditions. de l’Atelier 1997), p. 89. 9

152

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

The family will always stay with us, even in its vulnerability, a place of possibilities where we learn to receive and to give, a “testing ground” for personal and collective blossoming grafted on to the divine fulness, and also in so far as its members choose to love, because according to St Jerôme: “Dilectio pretium non habet”11 and we would add: “and without age!”

Jerôme, Epistula 3 ad Rufinun: “Love is priceless… .”

11

12

Families and the Church: From Objects of Pastoral Care to Sources of Spiritual Renewal Thomas Knieps-Port le Roi

The reflections on the relationship between the Church and contemporary families in this paper originate from a specific, and therefore necessarily limited, context. My analysis starts from the present situation in most western European countries taking into account the impact of modernity on both the Church and the family in terms of secularization, individualization, pluralization, and detraditionalization. Moreover, the following reflections are situated within my own Roman Catholic tradition and its theology and remain targeted towards it. It is beyond the scope of this paper to enter into a discussion with other cultural or societal backgrounds or different Christian traditions. I do hope, however, that by delineating my own particular theological position I provide some perspectives also for a cross-cultural and cross-denominational reflection and discussion on Christian families today.

Brief sketch of the current discrepancy between church and families and its historical background In the context I come from there is today hardly any theological reflection or pastoral initiative with regard to the family that does not start from acknowledging a tremendous discrepancy between the reality of contemporary family life and the Church’s discourse on the family. Although the Church has made a considerable effort over the past decades to highlight the family in its magisterial teaching, pastoral ministry, and theological reflection, it has finally not been very successful in overcoming the alienation of contemporary families from church life which, it seems, has only been growing since then. Whether religious belonging, mass attendance, domestic religious practice or

154

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

transmission of faith to the next generation are concerned—it seems that the majority of families have terminated the former and long-standing coalition with the institutional church.1 The reason for this alienation is twofold and can be located on either side. Just like other societal institutions, the family has undergone the aforementioned processes of pluralization, individualization, and detraditionalization which have resulted in a broad diversity of family types and constellations.2 Consequently, the variety of living arrangements in which people today organize their blood and kin relations no longer conform to the Church’s monolithic and normative concept of the family, especially when it comes to lifelong marriage as its indispensable condition and foundation. But also the Church may be to blame for its difficult relationship with the family. As a matter of fact, the Latin Church throughout its history has not paid as much attention to the family as its more recent discourse suggests. Since early times its attitude toward the family has been characterized by a theologically motivated relativization for the sake of a better, i.e. celibate and childless, way of life on the one hand and its pragmatic acceptance on the other.3 Much as marriage and family life were seen as the second-best way of Christian discipleship, it could not be ignored that Christians, too, normally grow up in familial contexts which most of them intend to continue on their part. However, this was too thin a basis for according any particular theological weight to the family. In addition, down the ages the Roman Church has focused much more on marriage than on family relations, thus implementing a sophisticated juridical framework supported by theological speculations about its sacramental character and a normative sexual and conjugal morality. Precisely because the Catholic family doctrine has first and foremost been a teaching on marriage, contemporary theologians believe that what is wanting is a theology of the family that is not of conceived See S. Klein, “Kirche und Familie auf Distanz. Wie kann die Kirche eine Kirche der Familien sein,“ INTAMS review 16 (2010), pp. 164–73; M. N. Ebertz, “Die ‘Koalition’ von Familie und Kirche – Ein Auslaufmodel? Soziologische Perspektive,“ in B. Jans (ed.), Familienwissenschaftliche und familienpolitische Signale. Max Wingen zum 70. Geburtstag (Graftschaft: Vektor-Verlag, 2000), pp. 123–38. 2 For a general overview see K. Kieran, “Changing European Families: Trends and Issues,” in J. Scott, J. Treas, and M. Richards (eds), The Blackwell Companion to the Sociology of Families (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2004), pp. 17–33; and N. F. Schneider, “The Future of the Family in Europe: Diversity and Convergence,” in H. Bertram and N. Ehlert (eds), Family, Ties, and Care. Family Transformation in a Plural Modernity (Opladen: Barbara Budrich Publishers, 2012), pp. 225–39. 3 See P. Brown, The Body and Society. Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988); H.-J. Klauck, “Die Familie im Neuen Testament. Grenzen und Chancen,” in G. Bachl (ed.), Familie leben. Herausforderungen für kirchliche Lehre und Praxis (Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1995), pp. 9–36; C. Osiek and D. L. Balch, Families in the New Testament World. Households and House Churches (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997). 1



Families and the Church

155

as an “extended marriage theology.”4 Moreover, it has ultimately been this exclusive concentration on the marital relationship that has led the Church in the more recent past to use the family merely as a bulwark against ideological attacks of diverse kinds on the core idea of marriage. While these attacks until very recently came from clearly identifiable ideologies that were hostile to the Church, the present erosion of central marital and family values emanates more silently and more steadily from within the families, which leaves the Church much more vulnerable and helpless. It seems that the Church now has to pay a high price for its enduring negligence of a theology and ethics of the family. The complexity of the current societal transformations in the realm of family and living arrangements finds her largely unprepared to face the confrontation in an adequate way.5 This very brief analysis of the present situation would be incomplete if it did not include the tremendous efforts of the Roman magisterium, and in particular of the late Pope John Paul II, to put marriage and family issues on the ecclesial agenda and treat them with high priority. While this endeavour deserves respect and appreciation, I believe that it has not gone far enough to bring Church and contemporary families in any way closer to each other.

H. Halter, “Kirche und Familie – einst und heute. Abriss der katholischen Familiendoktrin’,“ in H. Halter, A. Ziegler and D. Mieth, Sexualität und Ehe. Der Christ vor einem Dauerproblem (Zürich: NZN Verlag, 1981), pp. 103–46. 5 A number of theological publications across linguistic and denominational boundaries have in the meantime addressed and corrected this lack; see e.g. H.-G. Gruber, Familie und christliche Ethik (Darmstadt: WBG, 1995); D. S. Browning, B. J. Miller-McLemore, and P. D. Couture, From Culture Wars to Common Ground. Religion and the American Family Debate (Louisville/KY: Westminster John Knox, 1997); C. Kissling, Familie am Ende? Ethik und Wirklichkeit einer Lebensform (Zürich: NZN, 1998); G. Marschütz, Familie humanökologisch. Theologisch-ethische Perspektiven (Münster: LIT, 2000); L. S. Cahill, Family. A Christian Social Perspective (Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press, 2000); F. C. Bourg, Where Two or Three Are Gathered. Christian Families as Domestic Churches (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2004); K. Ulrich-Eschemann, Lebensgestalt Familie – miteinander werden und leben. Eine phänomenologisch-theologisch-ethische Betrachtung (Münster: LIT, 2005); M. Ouellet, Divine Likeness. Toward a Trinitarian Anthropology of the Family (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006); A. Thatcher, Theology and Families (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2007); B. Waters, The Family in Christian Social and Political Thought (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007); A. Dillen, Het gezin: à Dieu? Een contextuele benadering van gezinnen in ethisch, pedagogisch en pastoraaltheologisch perspectief (Brussels: Koninklijke Vlaamse academie van België voor wetenschappen en kunsten, 2009); J. H. Rubio, Family Ethics. Practices for Christians (Washington: Georgetown University Press, 2010); C. Rocchetta, Teologia della Famiglia. Fondamenti e prospettive (Bologna: Dehoniane, 2011). 4

156

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

Christian family in recent magisterial documents—a missed opportunity? Although late, the Roman Catholic Church seems to have understood the dramatic alienation of its discourse from contemporary family life. Drawing on the seminal considerations about marriage and the family in the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et spes) of the Second Vatican Council,6 Pope John Paul II in 1980 called together a Synod of Bishops to discuss the issues at stake, and published what he considered the major outcome of the gathering in the 1981 Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris consortio.7 Since then a multiplicity of further magisterial and dicasterial documents have appeared which all deal with the Christian family.8 If one compares Familiaris consortio with the previous teaching, one will notice a remarkable shift in the way the Church here talks about and addresses the family. From Leo XIII’s encyclical Arcanum divinae in 18809 and Pius XI’s Casti connubii in 193010 up to Vatican II the Church had always accorded marriage and the family a specific place in God’s plan of creation and redemption and insisted that the hierarchy’s main responsibility was to ensure that Christian families actually assume the position attributed to them by divine disposition. Thus, families were addressed at best as receivers of divine graces and objects of pastoral concern and for the rest were told what to do and how to behave in order to comply with the ecclesiastical expectations directed to them. These included mainly: bringing up the children in the Catholic faith, making them participate in the liturgical and sacramental life of the Church, taking care that sufficient priestly and religious vocations emerge out of the family, fostering a domestic life of prayer and charity, and following the Church’s prescriptions in sexual and social morality. In this way the Church tried to use Christian Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, nos. 48–52 (1965); http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_1965 1207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html 7 Pope John Paul II, Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio (1981) (henceforth referred to as FC); http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_ exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio_en.html; see also J. Grootaers and J. A. Selling, The 1980 Synod of Bishops on the Role of the Family. An Exposition of the Event and an Analysis of its Texts (Leuven: University Press, 1983). 8 For an overview see Pontifical Council for the Family (ed.), Enchiridion on the Family. A Compendium of Church Teaching on Family and Life Issues from Vatican II to the Present (Boston: Pauline Books, 2004). 9 Pope Leo XIII, Encyclical Arcanum Divinae (1880); http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/ encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_10021880_arcanum_en.html 10 Pope Pius XI, Encyclical Casti Connubii (1930); http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/ encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_31121930_casti-connubii_en.html 6



Families and the Church

157

families as a kind of outpost in an increasingly hostile world that had to ward off dangerous ideologies threatening to undermine the foundations of the Christian faith and of a society agreeable to God.11 The divine plan for marriage and the family provides the foundational theological framework also for John Paul II’s approach in Familiaris consortio. But unlike his predecessors he no longer addresses Christian families as passive followers of the hierarchy but rather as active agents in the salvific mission of the entire Church. From objects of pastoral concern and obedient receivers of ecclesiastical orders, families are supposed to become real subjects who together with all the other vocations in the Church share in the one and same mission of salvation for the world. Thus, John Paul II refers for instance to the family as being “the object but above all the subject of pastoral care of the family” (FC 72). The Pope even dares to formulate that … the Christian family is grafted into the mystery of the Church to such a degree as to become a sharer, in its own way, in the saving mission proper to the Church: by virtue of the sacrament, Christian married couples and parents “in their state and way of life have their own special gift among the People of God.” (LG 11) For this reason they not only receive the love of Christ and become a saved community, but they are also called upon to communicate Christ’s love to their brethren, thus becoming a saving community. (FC 49, author’s emphasis)

As is clear from this quote, this new vision is largely inspired by Vatican II’s revised understanding of the Church as the “People of God” sharing in a common baptismal vocation as exposed in the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen gentium.12 In this revised ecclesiology, the hierarchy of bishops and priests is secondary to and at the service of the common priesthood of all baptized rather than representing the top of a pyramidal structure of authority. From this perspective it is no longer the family that ought to be at the service of the Church, but rather a Church that puts itself “at the service of the family” in supporting, illuminating, and assisting the families in their diverse situations.13 See N. Mette, “Die Familie in der kirchenamtlichen Verkündigung,” Concilium(D) 31 (1995), pp. 330–45. 12 Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium (1964); http://www.vatican.va/archive/ hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html 13 See Familiaris consortio, no. 1: “Knowing that marriage and the family constitute one of the most precious of human values, the Church wishes to speak and offer her help to those who are already aware of the value of marriage and the family and seek to live it faithfully, to those who are uncertain and anxious and searching for the truth, and to those who are unjustly impeded from living freely their family lives. Supporting the first, illuminating the second and assisting the others, the Church offers her services to every person who wonders about the destiny of marriage and the family.” 11

158

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

Likewise, the papal vision includes some powerful statements concerning Christian families as ecclesial communities hereby also referring to Vatican II and its retrieval of the notion of “domestic church.”14 As is well known, Familiaris consortio calls the family “a specific revelation and realization of ecclesial communion” (FC 21) and “a living image and historical representation of the Church” (FC 49). If however one had hoped that the family were referred to here as a proper source of ecclesial communion that does not have to pass for that purpose through the cascade system of the hierarchical structures, one ends up in disappointment. The teaching of John Paul II in the end does not suggest the “small church of the home” as a novum ecclesiale, as an ecclesial novelty that has no equivalent in the conventional church structures and could therefore be a gift—a critical gift more precisely—to the larger church. Instead, this teaching seems to be based upon and to further cement the view that the “domestic sanctuary” of the family15 should be conceived of as a prolongation of the institutional church into its marginal edges, as a spelling out of ecclesial structures down to the smallest community, inviting families to model themselves on and subject themselves to the conventional practices of the Church in its teaching, liturgy, order and governance.16 But not only for its ecclesial qualities, also with regard to an “authentic and profound conjugal and family spirituality” which the Pope calls for in Familiaris consortio, the Christian family is strongly reminded of the limitedness of its scope of action. In an allocution addressed to the Plenary Assembly of the newly created Pontifical Council for the Family in 1987, the Pope expresses his appreciation for the many initiatives in the field of marital and family spirituality but then admonishes these groups to strictly follow the doctrinal and practical guidelines of the magisterium.17 Nobody should of course deny that Christian families have to be faithful to the Church, but what is problematic here is that the Church too hastily disposes of the proper and authentic input that families See Bourg, Where Two or Three Are Gathered; and T. Knieps-Port le Roi, G. Mannion, and P. De Mey (eds), The Household of God and Local Households. Revisiting the Domestic Church (Leuven: Peeters Publishers, 2013). 15 The term is used in the Second Vatican Council’s Decree on the Apostolate of the Laity Apostolicam Actuositatem (1965), no. 11; http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/ documents/vat-ii_decree_19651118_apostolicam-actuositatem_en.html 16 See T. Knieps-Port le Roi, “The Domestic Church. Revisiting a Theological Concept at the Intersection of Family Studies and Ecclesiology,” in Knieps, Mannion and De Mey, The Household of God, pp. 3–23. 17 “The promoters of marital and family spirituality have thus showed themselves to be full of initiative, but it is also well to stress their care for fidelity to the Church…The Church’s magisterium, which has clarified basic questions in recent years, must be followed faithfully in matters concerning the spouses’ Christian formation or preparation for marriage.” Pontifical Council for the Family (ed.), Enchiridion on the Family, p. 824. 14



Families and the Church

159

could bring to the faith life and practice. What I want to argue for in the remainder of this paper is precisely that families have a specific competence in faith practice and spirituality that is different, but also independent from, and therefore complementary to the Church’s traditional type of faith practice and spirituality which has been characterized as a celibate and monastic type.18 In order to retrieve this spiritual competence and potential, I will briefly analyze where the roots of its neglect are to be found. I have referred already to some theological motifs which have contributed to reducing marriage and family to a second-best way of Christian discipleship. Another factor to be considered here has to do with the social organization of religious life.

Retrieving the “lay competence” of families A major challenge many Christian Churches in the West have to face at present is a mentality in large parts of the population and even among their nominal members which has been described as “believing without belonging.”19 Regarding themselves as “spiritual, but not religious,” many contemporaries turn their back on the organized forms of religiosity in the institutional Christian churches, and adhere to a sort of personal spirituality.20 While there is little doubt about the evidence as such, analysts of the religious landscape do not agree on how to explain it. Some see in it not more than the momentary flaring up of a subjective religiosity which fits into the irreversible process of secularization and confirms the decreasing relevance of religion in modern societies.21 Others, by contrast, find it hard to believe that religion has become obsolete and even detect signals of its renaissance since alternative forms of religious expression have ultimately freed themselves from the surveillance and control of traditional church-oriented religion. In this way, Thomas Luckmann had In recent publications the mainstream spiritual tradition in Catholicism has been characterized as deriving from and relying on celibate and monastic patterns which are increasingly difficult to adopt for people living in marital and family relations. See e.g. M. A. McPherson Oliver, Conjugal Spirituality (Kansas City, MO: Sheed & Ward, 1994); see also T. Knieps-Port le Roi, “Marital  Spirituality: The Emergence of a New Paradigm in the Theology of Marriage and in Christian Spirituality,” in T. Knieps-Port le Roi and M. Sandor (eds), Companion to Marital Spirituality (Leuven: Peeters Publishers, 2008), pp. 15–44. 19 G. Davie, Religion in Britain since 1945. Believing without Belonging (Oxford: Blackwell, 1994). 20 See e.g. P. Heelas and L. Woodhead, The Spiritual Revolution. Why Religion is Giving Way to Spirituality (Oxford: Blackwell, 2005). 21 See e.g. D. Voas and S. Bruce, “The Spiritual Revolution: Another False Dawn for the Sacred,” in K. Flanagan and P. C. Jupp (eds), A Sociology of Spirituality (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007), pp. 23–42; see also S. Bruce, Secularization – In Defense of an Unfashionable Theory (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011). 18

160

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

already in the 1960s pointed to the emergence of an “invisible religion” beyond the visible religiosity within the established Christian Churches.22 However one may judge the diagnostic validity of this analysis which assumes a massive transformation in the field of religion rather than its decay, a particularly pertinent element in Luckmann’s account is his description of the paradigmatic processes of institutional specialization and its consequences which religious traditions have undergone from primitive times up to their modern forms.23 In a nutshell, the theory implies that, to the extent to which a small group of persons specialize in and dedicate themselves “professionally” to religious matters, the majority of the believers in contrast find themselves in the position of religious “illiterates” and thus of a religious “laity.” While the former use their knowledge and expertise to homogenize the religious worldview into a uniform doctrine, develop an ecclesiastic organization, and demarcate the religious community from society at large, the latter are denied a direct access to religious truth and instead have to conform to the authoritative standards in terms of doctrinal beliefs, ritual practices, and ethical codes. According to Luckmann, such a segregation of roles and competences has reached in Christianity a degree that was not paralleled elsewhere. One may immediately think here of the sharp distinction between an ordained clergy and the common lay faithful which has been characteristic for Catholic Christianity until very recently. But such differentiation has not only been limited to the level of hierarchical structure and organizational power. Although less apparent and more subtle, a similar form of specialization has also occurred in the realms of spirituality and religious practices. Here as well we find a relatively small group of professional experts in the hermitages and monasteries or acting on their own behalf who have committed themselves to an extensive life of spirituality and religious practices which go beyond what the common faithful would be able or willing to engage in. Whether in ascetic exercises, contemplative concentration or ethical rigor, such “virtuosi” provide models of spiritual excellence which show in an exemplary way what is expected from everyone but cannot realistically be done by everyone.24 T. Luckmann, The Invisible Religion. The Problem of Religion in Modern Society (New York: Macmillan, 1967). 23 See ibid., pp. 50–68. 24 For the concept of religious “virtuosity” see B. Lang, “Prophet, Priester, Virtuose,” in H. G. Knippenberg and M. Riesebrodt (eds), Max Webers ‘Religionssystematik’ (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2001), pp. 167–89; see also Idem, “Persönliche Frömmigkeit. Ein Typus van Laienreligiosität in Geschichte und Gegenwart,” in H. G. Knippenberg, J. Rüpke, and K. Von Stuckrad (eds), Europäische Religionsgeschichte: ein mehrfacher Pluralismus, vol. 2 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 2009), pp. 747–60. 22



Families and the Church

161

There can be little doubt that institutional specialization has shaped Christianity to a great extent from within and, what is more, has also been constitutive for its shaping of western civilization and culture. One can hardly imagine what would have become of the Christian faith without its official representatives who have cast it into a visible form and organizational structure. And the same is true for those who, off the beaten tracks of political power and influence, have become virtuosi and experts in spiritual practices and have thus gained another sort of authority by providing orientation and direction for average Christians’ devotional life.25 It seems, however, that this polar model with a relatively small religious elite on the one side and the mass of laypeople on the other is increasingly becoming dysfunctional in today’s western societies. The risk that the official religious worldview might drift apart from the lifeworld of the laity and be no longer able to integrate their experiences into an overarching framework has been identified by Luckmann as a general weakness of this form of religious socialization.26 If one adds to this the emancipative heritage of the Enlightenment which has also prompted Christians to question hierarchically structured forms of power and communal life, it becomes almost inevitable that the spiritual monopoly claimed by “specialists” clashes with the modern mentality which grants the individual the capacity to think and act autonomously in religious matters.27 In this situation every attempt from the side of the official church to contain the laity’s move-out by insisting on conformity to the traditional distribution of tasks and competences, will have little prospect of success. What is even more problematic, however, is that in this way the Christian community cuts itself off from the religious experience and spiritual competence which lay people possess and which specialization and expertise are supposed to support, shape, refine, even correct if necessary, but never to ignore or even deny. Seen from a purely sociological perspective, a church in which exclusively officials, theological experts, and spiritual virtuosos set the agenda may be able to survive as long as the laity conform to this regime but is likely to collapse if they don’t anymore. Theologically, however, such a setting does not deserve the name of Church, which most ecclesiologies today define as a community of believers who as individuals are supposed to live in Scholars in religious studies show how vital the sometimes extreme religious practices of a few virtuosi have been in most religious traditions in that they reveal and maintain its intrinsic logic; see e.g. M. Riesebrodt, The Promise of Salvation. A Theory of Religion (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2010), esp. pp. 122–48. 26 See Luckmann, Invisible Religion, pp. 77–106. 27 See I. Bocken, “The Language of the Layman. The Meaning of the Imitatio Christi for a Theory of Spirituality,” Studies in Spirituality 15 (2005), pp. 217–49, esp. pp. 217–20. 25

162

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

a personal relationship with God and to have a share in the community as a whole. Hence, there are good reasons, both sociological and theological ones, to critically review the process and effects of institutional specialization along with the above-mentioned pyramidal model of spirituality which raises the top performances of a few to the level of spiritual virtuosity while disqualifying the religious practices of the ordinary believers as average at best and inferior at the worst. In view of a dramatically changing religious landscape in late-modern societies both within and outside the Church, the central question is whether the religious lay person is entitled to a genuine and authentic spirituality which is neither a lighter and thus inferior version of the virtuoso spirituality nor antagonistic to an officially approved type. Only if both components of the question can be answered positively can it be made sure both that ordinary faithful may claim a fully-fledged Christian spirituality of their own and those outside or at the margins of the Church are to be taken seriously in their spiritual search. A promising path in that direction has been prepared by the Dutch scholar Kees Waaijman who, on the basis of a broad survey of concepts and practices in various religious traditions and beyond, has developed a typology of spirituality which offers an alternative to the pyramidal model described above.28 Waaijman distinguishes three major forms of spirituality which he classifies as the spirituality of the schools, the spirituality of counter-movements, and the spirituality of lay people. The first type, the spirituality of the schools, is that of the official and organized religion. The “clergy” is its representative figure. Members of the clergy assume specific functions within and for the faith community and thus put themselves at the service of that community, be it the proximate religious community they live in, be it the broader social community they reach out to. Their practices can vary from introverted to more extraverted forms—they may lead a life of contemplation or devote themselves to the cult, they may provide instruction to others or take care of the sick, they may be involved in pastoral ministry or do missionary work; their primary concern though is always to organize the religious life and to build up religious community. It is not difficult to recognize in this type the spirituality of the monks, the religious, and the ordained ministers which has become so characteristic for Christianity. Very often this type of spirituality can be traced back to the source-experience by some founding figure who first attracts a small group of disciples and whose central message or insight is then transmitted to further generations of See K. Waaijman, Spirituality. Forms, Foundations, Methods (Leuven: Peeters, 2000).

28



Families and the Church

163

followers by means of rules and regulations which constantly have to be adapted to changing contexts. Waaijman calls this type “school spirituality” since its primary focus is on pupils “who are prepared to let the course of their life be transformed by the spiritual model offered by the school.”29 It is here that spirituality can be learned professionally and brought to perfection and virtuosity. The second type is that of counter-movements or spiritual dissidents. By way of illustration Waaijman refers to the prophets in the Old Testament who protest against the official religious practices at the King’s court and the Jerusalem Temple, or the desert fathers in the early Church who withdraw from every form of human and religious community life. The list of spiritual dissidents includes flamboyant personalities like that of Jesus of Nazareth, Francis of Assisi, or Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Oscar Romero in the more recent past. What is common to them is that they undergo at some moment in their lives an existential crisis which puts them at the margins of or even in opposition to the established order in the political or religious community they previously belonged to. Operating from outside the institutional patterns they challenge the narratives, concepts, and practices of the official religion and thus uncover precious sources of spirituality which can provide powerful, but often also short-term, inspiration. Next to these two well-known forms of spirituality Waaijman identifies a third type which he calls lay spirituality. This type has not left any rules or traditions passed down from generation to generation like the spiritual schools nor can it refer to any heroic or desperate acts like those of the religious dissenters. Lay spirituality exists in the unspectacular of everyday life and is situated in the realms of partner relations, family life, friendship, neighbourhood, and work space. Spiritual experiences in this field are “primordial’ experiences, i.e. experiences directly connected to fundamental life issues such as birth and death, upbringing and formation, home and work, commitment and care, etc. The narratives of the patriarchs in the Old Testament provide a good illustration for this specific type of personal relationship with God which is experienced “at the time of birth and death, on the occasion of the naming and the weaning of the child, in the child’s upbringing and at the time of marriage, upon entering new pasture grounds and leaving them, at the time of sickness and dangers, in the context of assemblies and mutual helpfulness.”30 Far away from the official religious practices of the King’s court and the Temple in Jerusalem, Ibid., p. 15. Ibid., p. 20.

29 30

164

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

these ordinary experiences are shared mainly within the family circle. They are passed on orally and therefore do not establish a tradition which materializes in treatises and libraries and is visualized in cathedrals and monasteries. Waaijman’s threefold typology is particularly interesting because it clearly recognizes that the religious laity occupy a genuine, authentic, and proper field of spirituality which can be characterized as primordial and is thus not dependent on nor derived from ecclesiastical organization, theological expertise, or spiritual excellence. Though present in all religious traditions, it has easily been overlooked or consciously been marginalized in traditions in which religious institutions have claimed the prerogative of defining what true religion and spirituality is. Equally important for our purposes is that Waaijman locates lay spirituality from the outset in the field of family life.

Towards a new relationship between families and church? The characteristic and distinctive features of a lay spirituality in the family context begin to emerge when contrasted with the other two types of Waaijman’s typology, especially its institutional version. While the school spirituality is situated in the public sphere of the religious or broader social community, lay spirituality has its Sitz im Leben in the various interpersonal relations between partners, family members, friends, and neighbors. Consequently, lay or family spirituality originates from the personal life cycle whereas in the spirituality of the schools the focus is on transforming the individual course of life to make it fit into the spiritual paradigm of the school. Both types also differ in the way they deal with time and space. Time in family life is originally not structured by an official calendar mirroring the central events in the history of salvation; families celebrate birthdays, wedding days, anniversaries of death of family members, first days of schools, etc. because their primordial periodization is based on genealogy and inter-generational relations. Likewise, the original spatial dimension of family life is constituted by the natural habitat, the home and dwelling place, while institutional religion has churches, monasteries, or sanctuaries singled out as sacred spaces in which the divine can be encountered. Contrasting the two types of spirituality in this way does not mean that families have to move out from the official places of worship nor that they ought to substitute the Christian calendar for their own biography and genealogy. But it makes them aware that the official narratives and practices of the church are secondary instances which should not conceal or overlay the primary or



Families and the Church

165

primordial experiences in which they may be addressed by God personally and directly. If the theological challenge included in this model of lay spirituality is understood, the major pastoral task will be to coach families in order to help them articulate the religious experiences connected with the family context they live in and subsequently make it shape their life styles and practices. I am afraid that the relationship between contemporary families and the church will not be improved unless the church community sees it as its major task to support, confirm, and encourage families in the responsibilities their members assume and the daily care they provide for each other. Many families live and witness in their own way to an evangelical life even if it does not fully look like it according to the “official” standards.

13

Families in Finland between Idealism and Practice Gunnar af Hällström

Statistics A family in Finland consists of two adults and their eventual children below 18 years of age. The old definitions where for example grandparents were included have been abolished long ago, causing trouble to adult refugees who wish to get their parents to Finland. “Extended families” where others than the couple and their children live together do of course exist to a very modest degree, but they have no legal status. Thus a family in Finland is both theoretically and practically a so-called “nuclear family,” consisting just of the two adults and, on average, 1.7 children.1 The number of children within a family has gone down to this number from almost six children a century ago! This fact seems to indicate that the population is slowly diminishing, but this is not the case. Immigration mainly from the East and South causes the population to increase, though at a much slower pace than for example in Sweden, where the attitude towards immigration is clearly more favourable. What seems remarkable in the light of the statistics is also the fact that, though the majority of Finns live within a family community, the percentage of people living this way is steadily though slowly diminishing. In other words, the number of singles is increasing. Another remarkable feature in the light of the figures is that nowadays there are more childless couples than couples with children, which is something quite new in Finland. This is mainly a voluntary choice of the couple, but involuntary childlessness is on the increase, too. Adoption is regulated to the extent that few couples are willing to go through the time-consuming and emotionally exhausting procedure. Childless couples are partly the result of childbirth being The figure varies between 1.6 in some major cities and 2.4 in particularly religious regions such as Ostrobotnia.

1

168

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

postponed later and later. The average age of mothers getting their first-born child is nowadays 28.5 years.

Ideologies During the last decades families have been a hot topic in the Finnish political discussion, in the field of education as well as in economic decision-making. Political parties have their own programs for families, built on the ideologies of the parties. The state budget does not always reflect these ideologies, since economical realities put limits on what is practically possible to achieve and thus affect family life quite considerably. These ideologies also influence every writer dealing with this topic, and no claim of perfect neutrality is implied in what follows. The Lutheran church, the biggest religious denomination in the country, has also published a number of reports and manifests concerning family life.2 Ideals not always explicitly accounted for exist in Finland’s numerous denominations and revivalist movements, ideals important to follow for anyone wishing for full acceptance. Furthermore, families have changed quickly within the last decades. Hardly anyone can deny that. But the reasons, such as the quantity and the quality of the changes, are a matter of big controversy. Let me try to present a few aspects of this change.

Postmodernism Postmodernism not only changes the thinking of people, but it changes families as well, as a result of new ways of thinking. When speaking about families in Finland, postmodernism means that there are no great and coherent stories to tell about family life in this country, but innumerable small stories, conflicting opinions and family realities. Political parties and religious denominations may have their normative opinions concerning families, but couples and even the individuals within the relationship tend to realize themselves, to fulfill their own wishes. This means that marriages in Finland are steadily changing in the direction of, if you will allow the expression, individually centered unions. Most books and articles about families in Finland are written in Finnish or Swedish. The publications of the Lutheran church are no exception. One useful piece of work is Perheessä on voimaa (1993), for details, see the bibliography.

2



Families in Finland between Idealism and Practice

169

In the past a couple used to be a couple, not two individuals. They appeared together in work and leisure, they used to have a surname in common, and so on. Nowadays the tendency is to live one’s life individually but to do so within a marriage. This is clearly discernible in the daily routines of married people, but also in the work place, the bigger the company, the more so. Colleagues have a constantly decreasing knowledge of the family relations of each other. Maybe they do not even know who is married and who is not. In the evenings the married couple go mostly separately to different events, and the children of the family go to their hobbies, too. They practice these hobbies with their friends, and only rarely with other members of the family. If you visit the home of that family, which is something not very commonly done in the cities, you will find the surname written outside the door, as is usual in Finland (we do not live incognito). However, there is no longer just one surname on the door: instead, in extreme cases you may find a different surname for each member of the family. This became increasingly the case when the system of having just one surname for a married couple was abolished 30 years ago. The increasing number of reconstituted families, that is, new families consisting of (parts of) previous families, adds to this multiplicity of surnames. True postmodernism requires that you can choose the surname you wish. But it also requires that you forget about or even revolt against the traditional roles of men and women within the family. At home, you tend to do what you feel. Young couples, starting their life together, unless strongly attached to some ideology, start more or less from a tabula rasa-situation, from a blank slate, as to who should do what within the family. The fact that you are a man, or a woman, determines little or nothing. Postmodernism and individualism do not necessarily influence families in a destructive way. Many individuals honestly are longing for a stable relationship and a happy family life. Most Finns are still living within a relationship. They may be prepared to offer time and money to reach their goal. In the newspapers and ladies’ magazines one may read about happy couples and families spending lots of time together. Couples may join courses on child education and marital life. Television programmes on child education and other family-related topics are popular. Traveling together during vacations is considered a highlight in a relationship—or a terrible risk for the relationship.

170

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

Economical factors The picture of Finnish families has, thus, conflicting elements. This is hardly surprising remembering the individualistic attitudes in general, affecting also marriage and family life. It is generally agreed that the economic circumstances influence families a lot, possibly even more than the ideology.3 Less and less people have a work place for life in present-day Finland. In the Church, one of the most reliable employers there is, you may find such permanent employment, and to some extent elsewhere in society. But the general tendency is towards shorter terms of employment. Speaking about universities, for example, the trend is slowly moving towards professorships for five years. The state itself feels obliged to save money by reducing the number of employees. Companies, in a state of panic and in times of uncertainty, do not hire people but fire them. This sad phenomenon, which you unfortunately have experienced in Romania, too, because of the saving measures of Nokia, not only causes Finnish families economic uncertainty but puts the family institution in trouble or even at risk. The economic consequences are severe but not catastrophic for a family in Finland. In the case of unemployment the Finnish employee has a reasonable income for 500 days, an income in proportion with the salary the person had when working, and only after these five hundred days will he or she get a modest support providing for little more than food and accommodation. The unemployed father or mother is likely to find a new job sooner or later, which is evident from the fact that the unemployment rate is no more than 6.6 percent.4 But the new job may be tens or even hundreds of kilometers away from home, which may result in a situation where the married couple cannot live the weekdays together, but live in separate homes. This is of course not something altogether new, but it is increasing. The children will, then, have weekend-fathers and -mothers, the consequences of which are delicate to speculate on. Slightly more men than women are unemployed, resulting in an increasing number of less voluntary, male “house-wives.”

The influence of an economic recession on family life has been thoroughly studied in scholarly publications. One of the most significant works is that of Jouko Kiiski, Rakkaus lamassa. Parisuhdeongelmat ja 1990-luvun talouskriisi (2002), unfortunately available only in Finnish. See also Hiilamo 2004. 4 This figure was valid in 2011 when the Oradea conference was held. Nowadays the figure is constantly growing. 3



Families in Finland between Idealism and Practice

171

Equality of the sexes The equality of the sexes is a topic strongly emphasized throughout the Finnish society. This has been so already for decades. It is one of the strongest values there are in the official hierarchy of values, in the same way as in Sweden, from where most ideologies come to Finland. Occasionally equality is promoted to the extent of so-called “positive discrimination,” which means that in certain situations a woman can be chosen for a job in society even though she is not indisputably the most competent applicant. This can happen when the number of women in a work place is clearly lower than the number of men. Equality is understood very much in the sense of “doing the same things.” Equality, understood in the sense of complementary functions is propagated only by a few conservative parties and religious groups, whereas identical duties are the official policy. This ideal of identical functions does not only concern work and homework, it goes beyond. Modern Finnish vocabulary speaks of “parental leave” instead of “mother’s leave,” thus indicating that a father is expected to stay home with small children in the same way mothers do. By offering certain bonuses to young fathers staying home the state wishes to promote the equality of the parents. But at the same time political decisionmakers urge persons on parental leave to start working, in order to boost the nation’s ailing economy! At present, the result of the conflicting messages and expectations is that only a small minority of fathers seize the opportunity to stay at home with their children. Municipal day care is provided for all children, but a parent can stay at home with his or her child below three years. A home-care allowance, now and then fiercely debated on ideological grounds, supports the latter alternative, which is, however, less popular than day care in a nursery. A strong position of women in society does not automatically mean a strong position within the family, but by legislation the rights of a wife and a mother have been made strong within the family, too, and in relation to her children occasionally stronger than those of the husband. This legal aspect does not explain everything, however. My personal opinion is that Finnish married men have a tendency to delegate the decision-making within the family to their wives, because of some kind of male laziness or lack of energy. Those looking at things historically do point out that during Finland’s numerous wars with Russia/the Soviet Union men were absent from their homes for months and

172

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

possibly for years, leaving decision making and other obligations, including the task of wresting a living, to their wives.5 Judging from the headlines of Finnish newspapers the family seems to be the most dangerous place a citizen may live in. For reports of happy families one has to look elsewhere, as the official news presents the gloomy side of the story. There is one problem of such a magnitude that Finns themselves tend to regard it as belonging to their ethnic qualities: that is alcoholism. Finns are thirsty, but in a different way than many other nations. Drinking mainly takes place at the weekends, and its purpose is not to make the meal taste better. Even young people, though forbidden to buy alcohol under the age of 18, use strong alcoholic beverages with the deliberate purpose of getting drunk. In families this has too often disastrous consequences. An inebriated male Finn tends to become violent, so family violence is likely to be a consequence of this. Legislation has not proved to be very helpful here, with both wives and children getting their share of the inebriated husband’s wrath. Among reasons for divorce the excessive use of intoxicants is number two, exceeded only by infidelity. Ideological or religious reasons for this national tragedy are not presented, though Luther’s fondness for good beer would offer a good argument. Another family-related topic quite often mentioned in the headlines is pederasty. This is something relatively new, pederasty having been more or less a taboo in the past. When sexual abuse of children happens in religious circles, which now and then has been the case, this is reported in great detail. But, again, the reasons for such behavior are not looked for in religion itself. In a few cases patriarchal attitudes have been connected with the existence of child abuse. But since pederasty is not limited to patriarchal movements, more psychological explanations are looked for instead. Looking for typically Finnish features in family life calls for mentioning a third, less dramatic characteristic than those two already mentioned. The Finnish male in general, husbands hardly excepted, is notorious for his reluctance to speak. There is a huge difference as to the verbosity of Finnish men in different parts of the country, but their taciturn attitude is generally admitted as a fact. Though accepted by a number of wives, numerous other spouses mentioned it as one of the main problems for communicating within the family.

A similar explanation has been given for the relationship between men and women on Iceland: the husbands frequently fishing on the open seas have made it possible and necessary for the wives to take the practical lead.

5



Families in Finland between Idealism and Practice

173

Lutheranism Finland is to 75 percent Lutheran and therefore it is reasonable to ask to what extent Lutheran theology and family ideology and practice influence one another. Finns themselves would claim that, at least, the Lutheran emphasis on man’s obligation to work, and work hard, has affected family life in the country. It is the calling and mission of man to serve God by working, and even if God is forgotten work remains. Fathers and mothers work long days, and this should be so, according to a majority of people. This emphasis on work affects the relationship both between those married to each other and between the parents and their children. Work is done for the good of the individual, who is bettering himself, or for the family, but almost never predominantly for the community or the nation. The consequences of this “workaholism” are not necessarily positive. Because of the fact that both parents work (75 percent of all women are working outside their homes, an exceptionally high figure in Europe, Sweden excepted) children, including small children, are supposed to stay in nurseries for as long a time as the parents work—which means: a very long time. The alreadymentioned state-supported possibility of caring for one’s own small children up to an age of three constitutes a problem for some of the political parties. The absence from work for a maximum of three years will make the return to work difficult, especially for women, it is said, and this, in turn, is against the equality of the sexes. If hard work is something Lutheran (or Protestant), the equality of the sexes is Pauline, according to our theologians: in Christ, there is neither male nor female, free or slave (Gal. 3.28). Luther thought that there are two “regiments,” meaning two different areas of life where different rules apply. Within the spiritual world, that is, in the Church, biblical rules and values should prevail, whereas reason (ratio) is given to man so that he or she may live wisely in the civil world. Marriage and family life are neither sacraments nor religious matters at all but rather “weltliches Geschäft,” a secular business, as Luther puts it. Rational consideration should be followed in the organization of these earthly matters. These principles may have resulted in a kind of “secularization of family life” which is evident in Finnish society now. Even church members may use the second of two options, that of a civil instead of a church wedding, when making their relationship official. At present, 75 percent of couples are still wed in church, but the figure is constantly decreasing. However, the Finnish Orthodox Church, being the second national church in the country, regards marriage as a sacrament; but it has strikingly

174

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

similar problems among its married members to those the Lutheran church has, indicating that the theology of marriage may not be the leading principle in practical life. As for the individually-centred general worldview in Finland, one might say that it has religious roots, too. Protestantism is generally considered individualistic because of the emphasis given to laymen and women, and because of the general dislike for (religious) authorities. The families are, then, harvesting the individualistic seeds of Protestantism, if this line of interpretation is followed. But we should be cautious here. The Orthodox Church, strongly emphasizing community, has similar problems with individualism within marriages. If certain aspects of the Finnish family life are explained by reference to Lutheranism, how do we explain the same aspects in some Finnish Orthodox families? Lutheran and Orthodox families share the same joys and problems to a surprising extent, in spite of their different theological backgrounds. Obviously one should not derive the tendencies in society concerning marriages from theological premises, at least not predominantly. It seems to be more in accordance with the empirical facts that the development goes ahead in spite of confessional theologies. Admittedly the numerous small religious groups in our country have been more successful in applying their family values to their followers than the national churches have, but their influence on society is very modest indeed. The Lutheran Church seems to have two problems with its teaching on marriage. First of all, the Church’s voice is not heard in a society which is deliberately promoting secularism to an extent which is hard to imagine even in Southern Europe. Secondly, there is not much of a voice to be heard. Church leaders as well as professional theologians have difficulties in giving one, clear, and apostolic answer to the problems of today. Some decades ago there were animated discussions within the churches concerning cohabitation without marriage – today 18 percent of couples prefer this alternative. The discussion came to an almost complete stop. The same phenomenon was discernible in the debates on abortion: after a period of fierce discussion the churches’ voices died out. In modern times one topic is above the others in both church and society: same-sex marriages. These are strongly advocated by some political parties. They are officially called “equal marriages” in contrast to exclusively two-sex marriages, the latter regarded as displaying inequality since they are not open to all sexual inclinations. Theologians and church leaders have been working in numerous committees in order to find answers which are at the same time



Families in Finland between Idealism and Practice

175

modern and Christian.6 The paradoxical situation within the Lutheran church became particularly evident in 2002 when two opposite propositions were discussed in the church parliament. According to one of them, persons living in a registered same sex relationship should not be employed in the church. According to the other proposition, the church should prepare liturgical forms for the benediction of such couples. Traditional theological values are of course still somewhere in the background during debates on family matters, particularly so among conservative, often revivalist, debaters. But they are seldom able to produce convincing answers to the challenges of the twenty-first century. The ecumenical trouble experienced by the Lutheran Church in Sweden after its acceptance of a ritual for blessing same-sex couples has made the Lutheran Church in Finland cautious. And so has the fact that, whatever the church utters in these matters, a number of church members will quit the church membership by a simple click on the PC’s screen—the liberals first, and also the conservatives.

Concluding words There are many happy marriages in Finland, thank God. But generally speaking we cannot speak about a “success story” here. About 40 percent of married people themselves think that divorce is better, and act accordingly. Divorce is made easy by legislation, no reasons or guilty parties are looked for by the authorities. Within six months the divorce is a fact; or even instantly, if the (previous) couple has been living separately for two years. It happens that parents may be happy and successful, but the children seem to pay the price of their success. And even more often the children pay for the shortcomings of their parents. I dare not reveal how many children are taken care of by the civil authorities since their parents are regarded unfit for bringing up their own children. In recent years a number of political rows including foreign policy have arisen when children of Russian families living in Finland have been taken into care by child welfare authorities. Paradoxically, Finns seem to have accepted the fact that society takes care of mistreated children better than the Russians. Old people may have difficulties, too, since their grown up children are not capable of, or willing to, take care of them. Only a few elderly people live together with their adult children. Again, a lot is expected of society, which The reports from the committees on same-sex marriages are, again, mainly in Finnish and Swedish. In the bibliography a few have been included nevertheless. See Kirkko ja rekisteröidyt parisuhteet (2009).

6

176

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

in turn has economical difficulties to take care of an ever increasing number of elderly people. But allow me to conclude by praising the Lutheran Church of Finland for one thing. Though it has no more a clear teaching concerning family life, it takes care of families and their members beautifully when these fail. In every city there is a church-run office with trained staff for marriage counselling. There are groups for divorced people and occasionally meeting places for singles. For children waiting too long for their working parents in the evening there are some church-run nurseries that complement the state-run equivalents. There are activities for old people and also homes for them. Thus, though the Lutheran church does not show a very clear path for families to walk, at least it reacts when things go wrong. Maybe the church would still like to be like a safety car during a Formula 1 race, driving in front of all. But it reminds one more of an ambulance, taking care of families fallen ill. This could, if you wish, be regarded as the normal situation according to the Lutheran ecclesiology.

14

The Theology of the Sacrament of Marriage in the Orthodox Church Marian Vîlciu

Family is a divine institution created by God and for this reason it has a sacred character, emphasized by the fact that a family has as its prototype the Divine Family, the Holy Trinity. The ground for the existence of the Holy Trinity is the perfect love, communion, unity and equality of the three Persons. Therefore, we could say that the family is the most important institution created in the service of life. We do not want to minimize in any way the contribution of the other institutions as far as the support and the promotion of life are concerned, yet we would like to suggest that the family is superior to them from the perspective of its importance, role and specific features, being the place where the human person is shaped to the largest extent.

Christian family between sociology and theology “The family’s foremost work”1 is the transformation of an individual into a person, the family being a true cradle of life; it is the place where human life is formed, appears and develops. One cannot conceive life in its true sense outside the family, as, at the basis of the earthly origin of life is “the family as the core of society and at the basis of the family is marriage.”2 Sociologically called “the cell” of society, from the perspective of the Christian teaching, the family supposes a biological and a moral aspect. Biologically, the family needs to be considered as “the first cell” of society, on which life in general depends. When, in a nation, it happens that both marriage and family Nicolae Mărginean, Psihologia persoanei (The Psychology of the Person), (Sibiu, 1944, p. 262). Dumitru Abrudan and Emilian Corniţescu, Arheologia Biblică (Biblical Archeology), (Bucureşti: Institutul Biblic şi de Misiune al Bisericii Ortodoxe Române Publishing House (IBMBOR), 2002, p. 114).

1 2

178

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

are seriously affected in regard to their significance and of their role for life and for man in general, sooner or later that nation disappears. As far as the moral aspect is concerned, the family is considered the area where “the ‘chiseling’ of the Christian soul begins; the family is the most powerful component of a society regarding the practice of this supreme ‘art’, namely education.”3 Considering the fact that man is created in the image of God, by the very nature of his creation he is meant for a life of communion (Gen. 2.18). At the same time, as the Persons of the Holy Trinity delineate, through love, a perfect unity, consequently, man, ‘the image of God’, is a complete unity only considering the fact that “his unity as a man is not realised in the personal non-uniform duality, but in the complementary unity of man and woman.” 4 The unity of the family is demonstrated, on the one hand, by the fact that its model is God – One Being and Three Persons – and, on the other hand, by the way man was created: “Then Adam said, This [creature] is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of a man. Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and shall become united and cleave to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Gen. 2.23–4). Man and woman express, therefore, two ways of existence of the human being, created “as duality in order to exist in relation; individually, man does not feel complete, he looks for the other for accomplishment and creation.” 5 Man being created “in the image of God” and considering the fact that at the basis of the Holy Trinity is love, man himself being a fruit of God’s love, it is natural for man to feel the need of experiencing this love in his family life, which reflects the image of God as community in the Holy Trinity. God created man, calling him to life, out of love. He also called man to love, as God is love (1 Jn. 4.8) and he is, in Himself, the mystery of love and of personal communion of love. Love is for man the Creator’s gift, and at the same time it is also a responsibility: man needs to live in love for God and for his fellows, and he needs to put love at the basis of his family and of his life. Creating man in this personal and complementary duality, man and woman, God put in him the calling, and at the same time the capacity, to live in love and

Nicolae Achimescu, “Familia creştină între tradiţie şi modernitate. Consideraţii teologicosociologice” (The Christian Family between Tradition and Modernity. Theological-sociological considerations), Familia creştină azi (The Christian Family Today), (Iaşi: Trinitas, 1995, p 120). 4 Dumitru Stăniloae, Teologia Dogmatică Ortodoxă (Orthodox Dogmatic Theology), vol. III, (Bucureşti: IBMBOR, 1978, p. 180). 5 Constantin Galeriu, Taina nunţii (The Holy Mystery of Marriage), Studii Teologice (Theological Studies), (1960) 7–8, p. 489. 3



The Theology of the Sacrament of Marriage in the Orthodox Church

179

open to communion – love and communion being the fundamental and inborn calling of any human being. God establishes the family putting love at its basis, for man to be safe from selfishness and to make him capable of generosity to his fellow, so as to help his fellow, and to be helped by him, in times of need. God establishes the family to make man His associate in the work of continual creation of life, work that He blesses in heaven: “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it” (Gen. 1.28).

Theology of family in biblical context The first family created in heaven has God Himself as a priest and witness; doubtless, it is here that the family experiences the most beautiful period of its existence. Understanding, collaboration and harmony characterized the first family in paradise, yet, after the fall into sin, the condition of the family and man’s spiritual balance are shaken, with consequences for family life, as well. The first change is shown by God the Creator Himself, when He says: “Your desire and craving will be for your husband, and he will rule over you” (Gen. 3.16), which means that the order and the harmony that God had put at the basis of the family undergoes changes, the woman being put somehow in a state of dependence to man. Man no longer perceived in the woman the help given to him by God, but a person often despised; and children, who by definition are considered a gift of God, their presence amplifying the image of God as community in the family, were sometimes considered simple objects. This situation remains valid until the coming of the Saviour Jesus Christ in the world, who “reconfirms the relation of marriage between man and woman and makes it ascend from the order of nature to the order of grace.”6 The Redeemer restores the religious character of marriage, and through the grace of the Holy Spirit purifies and ennobles conjugal love. It is not by chance that He begins His redeeming work in the world by honouring marriage with His presence at the wedding of Cana in Galilee (Jn 2.2–11) “performing there His first miracle through His power going beyond nature, and giving the marrying couple to drink from the wine of enthusiastic love poured by Him through His grace, as He wanted

Dumitru Stăniloae, Teologia Dogmatică Ortodoxă (Orthodox Dogmatic Theology), vol. III, (Bucureşti: IBMBOR, 1978, p. 183).

6

180

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

to show by it that the ascension of human life to the order of grace begins from the confirmation and the ascension of marriage.”7 The Redeemer Jesus Christ, through His participation in the wedding of Cana, Galilee, and through the miracle performed there, “blessed marriage and took it under His protection,”8 elevating it to the level of holy mystery, on which God’s blessing and grace are poured, making the connection between the two spouses long-lasting and their love constructive. Through His teaching, the Savior shows that the family inaugurated by marriage is part of the order of creation. This is why reestablishing and keeping the primary unity and indissolubility of the family is a must. Christ the Saviour speaks clearly about the indissoluble character of marriage when He says: Have you never read that He Who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be united firmly (joined inseparably) to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together let not man put asunder (separate). (Mt. 19.3–6)

So, the words of our Redeemer Jesus Christ show that disintegrating the family by breaking the marriage is not in agreement with God’s will. The only reason accepted for breaking a marriage, mentioned in the sermon on the mount, is infidelity: “whoever dismisses (repudiates, divorces) his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” (Mt. 19.9) “Sexual immorality breaks the spiritual connection between man and woman and divorce will only make official a situation that is already present.” 9 The new teaching brought by Jesus Christ our Lord presents man and woman as equal,10 as they are both bearers of the image of God. Unlike the pagan world, where man was the tyrant of the family, holding absolute powers over his wife and children, in the Christian family, “both husband and wife become equal in

Ibid., p. 182. Vasile Mihoc, “Căsătoria şi familia în lumina Sfintei Scripturi. Naşterea de prunci, scop principal al căsătoriei” (“Marriage and the Family in the Light of the Holy Scriptures. The Birth of Children, the Main Purpose of the Family”), Mitropolia Ardealului (The Metropolitan Church of Transylvania), 1985, 9–10, p. 584. 9 Mihai Vizitiu, “Familia în învăţătura Mântuitorului şi a Sfinţilor Apostoli” (“The Family in the teaching of the Savior and of the Holy Apostles”), Familia creştină azi (The Christian Family Today), (Iaşi: Trinitas Publishing House, 1995, p. 30). 10 Saint John Chrysostom, “Omilia despre căsătorie – Comentariu la Epistola către Efeseni” (“The Sermon on Marriage – Comment to the Letter to the Ephesians”), translation and notes by Marcel Hancheş, Altarul Banatului (The Altar of Banat), 1–3, 2002, p. 75. 7 8



The Theology of the Sacrament of Marriage in the Orthodox Church

181

front of God,” 11 a truth highlighted as well by the Saint Apostle Paul who says: “there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3.28). In the Orthodox perspective, the family is made up of husband, wife, but also children, the latter being considered as gifts of God, “miraculous guides leading us through the world and obliging us to know it increasingly better […] teaching us an alphabet […] of the emotions, of the first feelings, of a huge fantasy, of purity and candor, [giving us] the power to discover the world with new eyes.”12 For this reason, family becomes the place where life itself continues, in general, Christianity itself being “the religion that started from a child’s cradle and from a mother’s breast.”13 All these are fundamental truths about the family, which the Church has professed since the beginning of its existence, with the hope that they will not be forgotten and that the family will remain “the Church from home,” a place of joy, of life, helping one acquire endless happiness.

Christian family and the contemporary challenges Arriving at the contemporary period, considering the evidence of our times, we can notice that family life has changed, has been “modernized,” to such an extent that it hardly relates to the principles of Christian morality. To this situation contributes the permanent process by means of which moral values tend to be devalued, considered outdated and no longer relevant for the present times; however, the search for other values, up-to-date and modern, finally leads to what we could call man’s depersonalisation. In this context, family bears a certain “constraint” to and towards libertinage (in which the norms of the Christian family and the “canon” of the moral values and of good sense are ignored). One can say, without the fear of being in error, that we are living somehow in a “dictatorship of indecency,” where Christian wisdom is considered a weakness or an outdated attitude, while indecency of any type is looked on as a virtue. Family and marriage begin to be regarded more and more as annullable conventions, some trying to relativise them. Eugenia Safta Romano, Arhetipuri Juridice în Biblie (Juridical Archetypes in the Bible), (Iaşi: Polirom, 1997, p. 142). 12 Tratat de Teologie Morală (Moral Theology Treaty), vol. II, (Bucureşti: IBMBOR, 1979, p. 292). 13 Vasile Coman, Episcopul Oradiei, Scrieri de Teologie Liturgică şi Pastorală (Theological Liturgical and Pastoral Writings), (Oradea: Episcopia Ortodoxa˘ Româna˘ a Oradiei Publishing House, 1983, p. 383). 11

182

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

Their significance and importance, for man and for life in general, are being questioned, through the promotion of “free cohabitation,” considered actual and modern. Under the pressure of such ideas and principles, in many European states, marriage is considered “restrictive monogamy,” “a bodily characteristic,” “an order characteristic for the Middle Ages”, or a “feudal structure”, and some go as far as to consider family and marriage as the result of “churchly repression,”14 conceptions that are lately gaining influence in Romania as well. Certain European trends propose this “free cohabitation” as an alternative for the family. Considered as a relation between a man and a woman for a period of time, which excludes the Holy Mystery of Marriage, it aims to be a public relation with the pretence of a social and even moral legitimacy. Some reactions to these conceptions appeared without delay in the Romanian public arena, as propositions affirming that the state should promote a consensual relation validated by a notary public, leaving aside any moral rule, the main argument being to avoid judicial consequences and divorce charges, and the disappointments caused by a failed marriage. These “free cohabitations”, as well as the so-called relations or families “for a try,” do not just mean that their protagonists do not take upon themselves minimal social responsibilities: they flagrantly contradict the teaching of the Church and Christian ethics in general. They can only have the “merit” of being an “object marriage” within which the two partners just “try” each other reciprocally, this type of relation excluding any kind of personal communion, as it lacks love and responsibility, and love and responsibility cannot be tried; they are or they are not present at all. Marriage and implicitly family are understood in this situation as simple contracts that the modern man does not need; it is for this reason that, in the countries considered developed, people abandon marriage increasingly often and more easily. To all these, the modern man adds as well another conception about life and family known as “the philosophy of happiness,” according to which man is obliged to be happy, its slogan being: “You have to be happy or you have lost the chance to live.”15 According to this conception, marriage is justified as long as its two protagonists are happy. When the spouses are no longer happy, they can Nicolae Achimescu, “Familia creştină între tradiţie şi modernitate. Consideraţii teologicosociologice” (“The Christian Family between Tradition and Modernity. Theological-Sociological Considerations”), Familia creştină azi (The Christian Family Today), (Iaşi: Trinitas Publishing House, 1995, p. 125). 15 Ibid., p. 126. 14



The Theology of the Sacrament of Marriage in the Orthodox Church

183

divorce and they are free to look for happiness somewhere else, such a mentality leading, obviously, to a degradation of the meaning of marriage and family.

Orthodox pastoral dimensions of today’s Christian family Naturally, such sociological realities determine mutations in the area of Christian spirituality as well. The pastoral experiences show that today’s young people—unfortunately more and more of them—come to Church to receive the Holy Mystery of Marriage just by virtue of accomplishing a tradition. There are very few who really understand what happens in the Holy Mystery of Marriage amongst the people who receive it. Consequently, today’s Christian families, many of them, have in view, to a large extent, only the earthly aspects of the wedding and very little, or not at all, of the spiritual side of this moment. All these highlight the fact that, more and more, the contemporary man no longer believes in the holiness of the relationship between man and woman and, all the more, he no longer believes in the mystery that God works during each spiritual service of marriage with the bride and the groom. This unawareness deprives today’s family life of its spiritual fundamentals. It is only when the sacred character of the relationship between a man and a woman is discovered in the family, understood as “profound mystery in Christ and in the Church” (Eph. 5.32) (a relationship that necessarily requires faith, love and conjugal fidelity) that man will get to feel what happiness really means. We do not think that we exaggerate if we say that parents, before the wedding of their own children, almost never come to church to confess their sins and to receive Holy Communion; nor do they pray in a more particular way, although it is known that “parents’ prayers fortify their children’s families.”16 For this reason, we consider it appropriate that, when establishing the date of a marriage in church, the priest should recommend the parents of the marrying couple to take care of the above-mentioned spiritual aspects as well, for the glory of God and of the Church, for their own good and for the good of their children. At the same time, as a necessary pastoral approach, we believe that the servant of the Church should recommend the young married couple to confess their sins to their spiritual father before the Holy Mystery of Marriage. In case they have no spiritual father, he himself should help them receive the Mysteries of Holy Confession and of Holy Communion, if possible (especially as, from Molitfelnic (Euchologion), (Bucureşti: IBMBOR, 1992, p. 84).

16

184

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

our pastoral experience, we know that most of the young people today have physical relations before their marriage). If they do not receive the recommendation of the priest, as it is well known that one of the conditions that the Holy Confession should meet is that of respecting the penitent’s free will17, at least the couple should be invited to a spiritual discussion in which they should be shown what a Christian family is, what the demands of family life are and what the responsibilities of the spouses are, and also what the meaning of the Holy Mystery of Marriage is and the theological and spiritual meanings of the liturgical acts that are part of the Holy Mystery of Marriage. We have the conviction that these minimal aspects will have the role of straightening the road, much too untrodden, that leads one to understanding the spiritual truths shared with us by the doctrine of the Church, and, in this case, by the Holy Mystery of Marriage. Certainly, participation in the wedding, at least for the bride and the groom and for their families, will be completely different. Even though some may consider it too much, we think something should be done as well to reinvigorate the institution of godparenting, which, unfortunately, is almost totally ignored as far as its religious dimension and significance are concerned.18 Beside taking care that the god-parents should both be Orthodox, the priest may recommend them to participate—together with their future godson and goddaughter, or separately, if possible—to take part in a catechetic moment specially meant for them, during which he can acquaint them with their spiritual and even social and family responsibilities, which they have as spiritual parents of the married couple, a quality acquired by accompanying the two spouses as god-parents during the Holy Mystery of Marriage. Such an arrangement by the priest could lead to the avoidance of some very unpleasant situations, such as finding out on the wedding day that the godparents are not married or they have a faith other than the Orthodox one. At the same time, such an encounter would lead to a recovery and a re-establishment of the god-parenting institution in an area of the authentic Christian spirituality, one that brings with it responsibilities, an area to which it actually belongs. The Orthodox Church has given and will continue to give great importance to the Christian marriage and family, as it is on them that not just the destiny of two people but also that of the human community depends. We need to hold on Ene Branişte, Liturgica Specială (Special Liturgics), (Bucureşti: IBMBOR, 1980, p. 388). N. D. Necula, “Ce rol au naşii de Cununie şi ce condiţii trebuie să îndeplinească?” (“What is the role of godparents and what are the conditions they need to fulfill?”), Tradiţie şi înnoire în slujirea liturgică (Tradition and renewal in liturgical service), vol. 1 (Galaţi: Episcopia Dunării de Jos Publishing House, 1996, pp. 214–16).

17 18



The Theology of the Sacrament of Marriage in the Orthodox Church

185

to the firm belief that the family should be inaugurated into the Holy Mystery of Marriage, a mystery making the family turn into a holy altar where love and the Christian virtues are lived, by means of which man realizes his happiness here on earth, along and together with his fellows, and gets closer to the Kingdom of God. It is not by accident that some theologians talk about marriage as a “conjugal apostolate.”19 A marriage sealed through the Holy Mystery of Marriage, as inauguration of the family, relies not just on man’s inner need to live in community, but also on the community that exists between God and mankind, whom He loves. For this reason the Church considers the family to be superior to all the other forms of human community. Therefore, from a theological and ecclesial perspective, the role of the family can never be questioned. Marriage and family should be considered, first of all, as closely related to the common life of the Church, the family being the icon of the Church (ecclesia domestica) and the icon of Christ’s love for mankind, just as Saint Apostle Paul affirms it: “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her to make her holy” (Eph. 5.25–6).

Final remarks To conclude, the Christian family has a mission to become, first of all, an authentic community of life and love, which is not devoid of wisdom and responsibility, and which will find its complete accomplishment in the Kingdom of God. At the same time, the Christian family needs to keep, to discover and to communicate faith and love, as a living reflection of, and real participation in, God’s love for mankind, and in Christ’s love for the Church. And, by doing so, the Christian family will manage to overcome the limits of unfulfilment and will enjoy the blessing and the grace of God. In so doing, it will accomplish a fundamental mission in a concrete way.

Paul Evdokimov, Taina Iubirii. Sfinţenia unirii conjugale în lumina tradiţiei ortodoxe (The Mystery of Love. The Holiness of the conjugal union in the light of the Orthodox Tradition), translated by Gabriela Moldoveanu, (Bucureşti: Asociaţia medicală creştină Christiana, 1994, p. 53).

19

Part Four

15

Discipline and Love—Biblical Roots of Modern Christian Parenting María Ágústsdóttir

Children and parents in the Bible A quarter takes after the father. A quarter takes after the mother. A quarter is shaped by the upbringing, a quarter by the name.1

This old Icelandic saying presents a certain view of the child, according to which half of the child’s personality is inherited, that is genetically bound. The other half is influenced by social factors: the upbringing and the name. Without entering into the discussion of which is more important—genes or upbringing, nature or nurture—this old wisdom seems to be a good consensus between the two. Like it or not, your child will almost certainly inherit many of your faults, and you might have to discipline yourself along with the child as this becomes more clear in the growing child. The good news is that, since the child takes after you, it should be easy for you to spot their God-given talents and help the child to make them grow stronger than the faults. This is how nature and nurture can have healthy cooperation. This emphasis on the name is very interesting to a keen reader of the Bible. The names that God or those acting on God’s behalf give His children are not random. Partly the names in the Bible describe a quality in a person or some circumstances of life.2 Some names have a certain prophetic aspect to them, foretelling what could or should become of this person.3 Sometimes God even Originally, the focus on upbringing comes from the late thirteenth century Njáls Saga. As in Moses, Exod. 2.10. All biblical quotations are taken from the New Living Translation (NLT) Study Bible unless otherwise noted. 3 Example: John the Baptist, Luke 1.59–66. 1 2

190

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

gives a person a new name, in order to make something new happen or confirm a newness of life.4 We should therefore ask God for guidance when we give our child this important gift, the name.

See your child as a gift from God Speaking of gifts; according to the Bible children are a gift from God. Eve, “the mother of all who live” (Gen. 3.20), acknowledged the Lord’s help in “producing” her first son, Cain (Gen. 4.1), and when her son Seth was born she also saw God at work (Gen. 4.25). Of Ruth, it is said that “the Lord enabled her to become pregnant” (Ruth 4.15), thus being present and active even at the moment of conception. In Deuteronomy 7.12–15 it is said that the gift of children is one of the promises and blessings of God to those who love and faithfully obey his commands. In Psalm 127.3 this same thought is expressed: “Children are a gift from the Lord; they are a reward from him.” The other side of the story we hear from Sarai that it was God who prevented her from having children (Gen. 16.2). This we might find a bit harsh, blaming God for being childless, but then we must have in mind that the faith expressed in the Old Testament sees God at work in all that happens in life, both the good and the presumably bad things, trusting God in all circumstances.5 Here, the most important thing is to see God as the source of life and thank the Lord for our children’s existence. That gives their upbringing a solid ground and is a healthy reminder when things get tough. That we owe the Lord for our child’s life should bring out the best in us and result in deep respect for the value of their life from the very moment a new person is conceived. Jesus´ example is of utmost importance. When the disciples ask Him who is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven, the answer Jesus gives is a symbolic act (Mt. 18.1–5). He calls a little child to Him and puts it in the center of a group of adults and tells them to become like this little person. Even in our day this is a revolutionary idea that we big people should return to the smallness of childhood. But this is exactly what Christ did himself (Phil. 2.8) and therefore, when we welcome a little child in the name of Jesus, we are welcoming Himself and the Father who sent Him (Mk 9.36–7). God in all His greatness is present Abram becomes Abraham, Gen. 17.5; Sarai becomes Sarah, Gen. 17.15; Peter is added to Simon the fisherman’s name, Lk. 6.14; Mt. 16.18. Compare Deut. 32.39: “Look now: I myself am he! There is no other god but me! I am the one who wounds and heals; no one can be rescued from my powerful hand!”

4

5



Discipline and Love—Biblical Roots of Modern Christian Parenting

191

where a child is cared for and respected: “Whoever is the least among you is the greatest” (Lk. 9.48).

Respect the value of the child How much Jesus values children is expressed in the narrative of Jesus healing in the temple after his entry into Jerusalem (Mt. 21.14–16). The children began to shout, “Praise God for the Son of David.” This shouting was frowned upon by the adults, the allegedly wise leaders and teachers of religion, and Jesus answers them by quoting Psalm 8.2: “You have taught children and infants to give you praise.” Here the children show the quality of childhood Jesus wanted his disciples to learn, to dare to show sincerity and life-enforcing humility in their relationship with God and other people.6 They had just seen Jesus enter Jerusalem and their bright voices must have been in the joyful choir of the crowd, not to be repressed: “Blessings on the King who comes in the name of the Lord! Peace in heaven, and glory in highest heaven!” (Lk. 19.38–40). That is how children learn and repeat what they see and hear. Is your home a place of praise and joyful noise (Ps. 100 KJV)—or are the children expected to keep quiet? We should be like the parents who brought their children to Jesus “so he could lay His hands on them and pray for them” (Mt. 19.13), “touch and bless them” (Lk. 18.15), which He did, showing their value and the importance of giving them time and undivided attention. Time and patience are the most valuable deeds when it comes to child fostering. A couple of minutes of closeness in the morning before getting dressed or leaving the house can work miracles for the parents. Doing as Jesus did—depending on the child’s age, of course—taking the child in our arms, praying together, blessing them, maybe with the sign of the cross if that is your tradition, certainly lays a peaceful and caring ground for a good day. In Ephesians 6.1–2 children are urged to show obedience to their parents, as this will bring them prosperity and long life, according to the Ten Commandments: Children, obey your parents because you belong to the Lord, for this is the right thing to do. “Honour your father and mother.” This is the first commandment with a promise: If you honour your father and mother, “things will go well for you, and you will have a long life on the earth.” Compare Mk 10.13–16.

6

192

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

This is Godly wisdom; build on the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and the experience of the generations. To honor our parents and show respect to their guidance gives a solid ground for a good life.7 Parents should also honor their children and respect their feelings. This is stressed in the next verse of Ephesians 6: “Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger by the way you treat them. Rather, bring them up with the discipline and instruction that comes from the Lord.” The apostle gives a similar bilateral instruction for parents and children in Colossians 3.20–1: “Children, always obey your parents, for this pleases the Lord. Fathers, do not aggravate your children, or they will become discouraged.” In my 1992 thesis on the responsibility of the Church for children in modern Icelandic society, I suggested that the apostle here shows sound child psychology, even measured by modern standards.8 Our disciplinary acts as parents must certainly not be random reactions to unacceptable behavior, which would only result in stubbornness and discouragement of the child. This would be a degrading kind of parenting, neither empowering the child nor bringing out the best in them. Instead, we should first seek the Lord in prayer, preferably then and there, because often the situation gives us no time to go away and shut the door for private prayer (Mt. 6.6). A quick prayer gives the Lord space to calm down our own upset feelings and allows us to listen to the voice of God’s wisdom in our heart, and thereafter to correct the child’s behaviour without losing our equilibrium.

Listen! Listen. Listen. What a wonderful word! To listen is one of the most important keys to successful parenting. First, we should listen to the Lord by reading His Word in a prayerful way. Second, we should listen to our spouse as it is vital that we share our upbringing methods. Third, we must listen to our children. That will help the children to do what every parent dreams of and the Bible strongly advises, as it brings grace and honor (Prov. 1.8–9): That the children listen to their parents! There must, surely, be a balance in this listening process. Parents that are so focused on listening to their child that they can hardly insert a word themselves Whereas insulting your father or mother will have the result of “your light will be snuffed out in total darkness,” Prov. 20.20 warns us. See also Prov. 19.26; 30.11–14, 17. María Ágústsdóttir, “Guð heyrir hljóð sveinsins… Ábyrgð kirkjunnar á börnum í íslensku nútímasamfélagi.” (Unpublished Cand. Theol. dissertation from the University of Iceland, 1992).

7

8



Discipline and Love—Biblical Roots of Modern Christian Parenting

193

in the ongoing stream of words from the child are missing the point. A child should not only have the right to be listened to but also learn to listen to others. When I was growing up, children were supposed to keep quiet when grownups were speaking. Questions were not always welcomed and there was limited space for lively conversation between adults and children. Nowadays, children are often allowed to speak up whenever they like, even interrupting another person’s speech. We need to guide our children to a respectful way of expressing themselves, allowing everyone at the table or in the room to speak. One way of giving our children space to say what is on their minds, without being interrupted or interrupting someone else, is to reserve special time for each child with mother or father. This should be easy in the modern oneor two-child family but requires some planning in bigger families. A good occasion could be in the evening after doing homework and sharing the meal with the family. To encourage the child to express itself freely you could ask what the highlight of the day was for them, and also if something went wrong in school or at home. To share something from your own day is also a wise thing to do so the child will understand that mother and father also have their ups and downs. Just remember to limit yourself to what is appropriate for a child to know. After this sharing, you are now prepared to lay it all in God’s hands in prayer, thanking for the nice things and asking for guidance and forgiveness in more difficult situations. Issues of discipline that have occurred during the day could also be brought up in this valuable conversation, especially if the parent or the child still has to say ´I’m sorry´ for reacting too harshly or behaving in an inappropriate way.

Discipline When we hear the word “discipline” some of us will probably think “chastisement” or “physical correction,” even with a rod (cf. Prov. 23.13). However, there are other meanings to the word, and means other than spanking when it comes to correcting our children.9

For healthy methods of discipline the reader is referred to books on child rearing.

9

194

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

Do you use more negative or positive discipline? As John Macquarrie points out, the term ´discipline´ has two related meanings.10 One is “the maintenance of certain standards of conduct through the enforcement of them by appropriate penalties.”11 This could even include physical punishment, which is certainly implied in the Old Testament, according to the custom of the time. In modern Christian magazines and articles on parenting, discipline and spanking are sometimes mentioned in the same sentence. Physical discipline is now forbidden by law in many countries12 as it can be more harmful than helpful for a child’s emotional stability and is therefore not advisable in modern parenting.13 Still, as will be shown, “appropriate penalties” of authoritarian parents have more preventive effect on teenage behaviour than no boundaries at all. This could be defined as negative discipline, focusing on limiting bad behavior. The other meaning of the term discipline is, according to Macquarrie, “the training of persons so that they will conduct themselves according to given standards” and “the more important kind of discipline which has to do with the forming of disciples and their training in the Christian life.”14 In this way the positive discipline of training and formation with active guidance and loving rules is emphasized, instead of punishment. The goal of such parenting is to bring out the best in our children, giving them a fertile soil to grow strong in their God-given talents. One important aspect of discipline is self-discipline, self-control, belonging to the fruit the Holy Spirit produces in our lives (Gal. 5.22–3). The apostle Peter urges his fellow Christians to grow in their faith, depending on God who by his divine power “has given us everything we need for living a godly life” (2 Pet. 1.3), thus enabling us “to share his divine nature and escape the world’s corruption caused by human desires” (2 Pet. 1.4). Among the qualities we should work hard for and ask God to develop in us is self-control (2 Pet. 1.6). A first step to help our children to more self-discipline must be to seek to cultivate this important quality in ourselves.15 Some of us who are parents John Macquarrie, “Discipline” (J. Macquarrie and J. Childress (eds); A New Dictionary of Christian Ethics; London: SCM Press Ltd, 1986), p. 159. 11 Ibid. 12 In Iceland from 2009, with an amendment to the Child Protection Act from 2002, compared with Sweden, where a similar law was enacted in 1979. 13 Geir Gunnlaugsson and Jónína Einarsdóttir, “Að hemja hundrað flær á hörðu skinni… Ofbeldi og refsingar barna,” (G. P. Jóhannesson and H. Björnsdóttir (eds); Rannsóknir í félagsvísindum, XI; Reykjavík: Félagsvísindastofnun Háskóla Íslands, 2010), pp. 51–8. 14 Macquarrie 1986. 15 Compare 1 Cor. 9.25–7. 10



Discipline and Love—Biblical Roots of Modern Christian Parenting

195

might need to learn anger management and grow in our emotional intelligence, sometimes a neglected skill in our own upbringing. One important first step in controlling our anger or negative emotions is as suggested above: to turn to the Lord in a quick prayer, either immediately or to go aside to another room.16

Discipline as instruction Discipline is certainly also connected with instruction. In an article on children’s education in Ancient Israel, Old Testament Professor Gunnlaugur A. Jónsson shows how the teaching of children is dealt with in the book of Deuteronomy. The education of children was “closely related to religious matters, mainly in the context of family and festivals,” Jónsson states, and in this didactic book “the importance of knowing not only the rules but also the story behind the rules” is clear.17 According to Deuteronomy, learning about and listening to the Lord’s commandments, decrees and regulations is even for the sake of the unborn, not only the now living: “Oh, that you would choose life, so that you and your descendants might live!” (Deut. 30.19). The key to your life is “to love the Lord your God, obeying him and committing yourself firmly to him” (Deut. 30.20). Just as the “first commandment with a promise” (Eph. 6.1–2), to obey and honour and trust in your “higher power” brings a long life in the land of promise (Deut. 30.20). This can also be seen in Psalm 78.1–8, where the people are advised to learn “hidden lessons from our past” and tell the next generation, “even the children not yet born.” Each generation should “set its hope anew on God” and the teaching of the parents is crucial to passing that hope on (Ps. 78.7). So, this is what we should teach our children: to love and trust in the Lord and set our hope in God. The advice of Psalm 1, to meditate on the law of the Lord, Torah, is part of the same thought, Torah meaning guidance or teaching rather than law.18 This teaching in the guidance of the Lord was part of the everyday life in the Hebrew home: “Tell your children” (Exod. 10.2); “Explain to your children” (Exod. 13.8); answer them when they ask why they should obey the Lord (Exod. 13.14; Deut. 6.20–5). In the Old Testament we hear about the mother instructing her children (Prov. 1.8; 6.20; 31.1, 26), and the father (Exod. 4.1–9) and the parents together (Deut. 4.9). Plenty of advice on anger management can be found on the internet. Gunnlaugur A. Jónsson, “Þegar sonur þinn spyr þig – kennsla barna í 5. Mósebók” (S. A. Bóasdóttir (ed.); Ritröð Guðfræðistofnunar 31(2) (2010), pp. 60–71. 18 Ibid. 16 17

196

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

In Deuteronomy 6.4–9 the importance of repeating this most important statement of faith to the children again and again is stressed: “The Lord is our God, the Lord alone. And you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your strength.”19 That the teaching of the love for God should not be limited to bedtime or the gathering of the community is underlined: Talk about them when you are at home and when you are on the road, when you are going to bed and when you are getting up. Tie them to your hands and wear them on your forehead as reminders. Write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.

This is a reminder to modern parents that we should not leave the modelling of our children’s personalities to the kindergarten or school or the children’s club at church. No, we should be alert to emphasize God’s love for every human being and the urge to love God and our neighbor in every situation of life, at home and on the road, morning and evening and in everyday life. We parents are the most important persons in our children’s life and we are responsible for instructing them in the good life of God.

The instruction of others In the public primary school in my home country, Iceland, children have religion on their curriculum, presenting both Christianity and other religions to the pupils. In secondary school (age 14–16) and upper secondary school (age 16–20) hardly any religious teaching is offered. No official follow-ups are made to measure the quality or content of this teaching, so it is very much up to the parents to find out what their child is being taught at school. For the older students, nothing is added to their religious vocabulary after they get into the sometimes confusing years of puberty, when many questions about self, their relations to others and the purpose of life arise. My church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Iceland, offers various children’s work most weeks during the wintertime. We have gatherings for parents with toddlers, Sunday schools for children up to 6 years, clubs for 6–9 and 10–12-year old children, and youth work for the confirmation classes (13–14 years) and older teenagers. But when it comes to Christianity’s most important feast, Easter, the Church has nothing to offer families who do not feel comfortable with bringing their children along to the traditional services. Shema Yisrael. To Shema, Jesus added an “equally important” commandment of love (Mt. 22.37– 40), originally from Leviticus 19.18: “Love your neighbour as yourself.”

19



Discipline and Love—Biblical Roots of Modern Christian Parenting

197

In my family we have over the years developed a nice tradition at Easter. We play the whole Easter narrative, beginning at Palm Sunday with one of us as the colt, another one as Jesus and the rest as the crowds praising God (Lk. 19.36– 40). Then we go on to the anointing of Jesus (Mt. 26.6–13, Jn 12.1–8), using a drop of real oil or perfume for the sake of fragrance. Before sharing a simple meal of juice and bread to remember Jesus´s last supper with his disciples (Lk. 22.14–30) we wash each other´s feet (Jn 13.1–11). In the garden we fall asleep as the disciples (Lk. 22.39–46) and then some of us turn into the crowd led by Judas who kisses Jesus (Lk. 22.47–53). Then comes Peter’s part in the courtyard, where he denies Jesus with the following crow of the rooster and our Lord’s look at Peter (Lk. 22.55–62). Following Jesus to the high council, Pontius Pilate and Herod Antipas, resulting in the release of Barabbas (Lk. 22.66–71 and 23.1–25), we appoint a Simon from Cyrene to carry the cross and then two of us say the words of the criminals (Lk. 23.26–43). With John and Mary standing near the cross, we hear the words of Jesus for them (Jn 19.25–7) and then his final words (Jn 19.28–30). Jesus’s body is brought to a place we call the grave and then all of a sudden we have Easter morning with the angels and the women and Peter at the grave and also Mary Magdalene (Jn 20.11–18). There is also room for Thomas touching Jesus’s wounds (Jn 20.24–9). Sometimes we even join Jesus and the disciples at the beach, eating fish for breakfast (Jn 21.4–14). At Christmas, many parishes have special services for families, but at Pentecost the weekly gatherings for children are long gone on summer vacation, and for four months the children who do not go to Christian summer camps have no-one to rely on but their parents! Let’s hope that we live up to that responsibility, since our role as parents can even be said to be the most important office of the church, as former Bishop Karl Sigurbjörnsson puts it: The family, the home, is the basic unit of the church, the parish, and every family, every home, needs to be aware of that fact and have the opportunity to grow in prayer and healthy faith. The most important office of the […] Church is the office or role of parents who teach their child to pray, to know God and love neighbour, to distinguish good from evil and right from wrong and to do what is right and love the good.20

The amount and quality of children’s work in parishes and religious teaching at schools varies from country to country. Still, whatever the offers from outside, we parents have the primary responsibility of passing on to our children what 20 Karl Sigurbjörnsson, Lítið kver um kristna trú (Reykjavík: Skálholtsútgáfan, 2000), (author´s translation).

20

198

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

we have found to be the most valuable basis for a good life: The Love of God in Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit. It is on the daily walk that this truth is absorbed by the child, the integrity of our deeds often speaking more loudly than our words: “The godly walk with integrity; blessed are their children who follow them” (Prov. 20.7).

Parenting styles In Macquarrie’s article mentioned earlier, he notes that it may well be that “the decay of discipline is due as much as anything to indifference.”21 This is also shown in some Icelandic research by Dr Sigrún Aðalbjarnardóttir and her co-worker, who in a longitudinal study followed a group of adolescents from the age of 14 to the age of 17. The teenagers were interviewed to find out what kind of parenting methods had the best outcome in preventing teenage substance use.22 Relying on other research23 Aðalbjarnardóttir divides parents into four groups: authoritative, authoritarian, permissive and neglectful.

How does our parenting style affect our children? The results are very clear: the teenagers of the neglectful—we could also say indifferent—parents were in most danger of getting into trouble, for example drinking and smoking. Such a parent is the father or mother who says to their child: “Just do as you please.” The home has no rules, no standards to rely on, and as a consequence the child becomes confused and unreliable. Lack of caring and boundaries raises the danger of the child behaving in a socially unacceptable manner. The permissive or indulgent parent—despite a caring style of parenting—could also run the risk of resulting in teenager substance abuse as rules could be missing. The home of the strict or authoritarian parent, having many rules and harsh punishments for even a small irregularity, would produce a less disorderly teenager than the neglectful home and even the permissive one. Love without discipline, as in the permissive or indulgent home, is more likely to result in Macquarrie 1986. Sigrún Aðalbjarnardóttir and Leifur G. Hafsteinsson, “Adolescents’ Perceived Parenting Styles and Their Substance Use: Concurrent and Longitudinal Analyses” (Journal of Research on Adolescence, 11(4) (2001): 401–23. 23 23 Beginning with Diana Baumrind 1971, in Aðalbjarnardóttir and Hafsteinsson 2001. 21 22



Discipline and Love—Biblical Roots of Modern Christian Parenting

199

dangerous behaviour than discipline without apparent love. The main reason for this, Aðalbjarnardóttir´s research shows, is that a child of a strict parent is more secure in being loved than a child of an indifferent parent. A set of strict rules, even with harsh punishments, is better for a child than no rules.24 The best method to avoid our teenagers behaving badly is to have an authoritative style of parenting, a caring home with a sound but simple set of rules, often agreed on by the family together so that everyone has a voice in the household. Breaking the rules has a clearly-defined consequence, acted out patiently each time with no casual outbursts of parental resentment. The rules are then a sign of parental love and care for the well-being of the child, supported by genuine interest in the child’s everyday life. In their article, Aðalbjarnardóttir and Hafsteinsson bring up two major dimensions of parenting: support and control, “in which low support and lax control tend to be related to increased likelihood of substance use.”25 Support and control are the two sides of discipline, as we seek to preclude bad behaviour and encourage good behaviour. For that to function we need love.

Love “Which do you choose? Should I come with a rod to punish you, or should I come with love and a gentle spirit?” the apostle asked the church in Corinth (1 Cor. 4.21). Nowhere in the New Testament is punishing children with a rod recommended.26 Rather, the implicit answer to the question of the apostle to his “beloved children” in Corinth (1 Cor. 4.14) is that love and a gentle spirit should be preferred. That does not mean abandoning discipline, since it is, as will be shown, one part of the overall value of the Christian life: Love.

Discipline as love? In Aðalbjarnardóttir´s view, support and control, love and discipline always have to go hand in hand: “high levels of family cohesion and adequate parental monitoring” are the balance a child needs in their life, as well as a parent-child What is omitted in this analysis is the emotional well-being of the well-behaved teenager. Is doing the right thing always synonymous with having a harmonious inner life? 25 Aðalbjarnardóttir and Hafsteinsson 2001. 26 Still, physical chastisement seems to be involved in the picture of Hebrews 12.10–11, where the discipline of earthly fathers is said to be painful. 24

200

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

relationship built on “mutual trust and respect.”27 This is also the view of the Bible, as for example the book of Proverbs “affirms the power and impact of a strong, cohesive family that loves and follows God.”28 Both support and control are expressions of love: that to discipline your child—meaning both control of bad behaviour (negative discipline) and support of good behavior (positive discipline)—is showing love. To love your child is to accept and value and respect them as a person, but not to accept just any behavior. To love your child is to be involved in their life and responsive to their needs, without controlling every movement or indulging every wish. To love your child is a balance between monitoring and trust, to let the child make their own decisions in matters that are suitable for the child’s age with the supervision of the adult. This connection between love and discipline is also expressed in the Bible. Love is the basis and essence of “the entire law and all the demands of the prophets” (Mt. 7.12; 22.37–40). Thus discipline is embedded in love: “Love does no wrong to others, so love fulfils the requirements of God’s law” (Rom. 13.10). Building your children’s characters with love for God and love for neighbour will lead them to obey the Ten Commandments, respecting God in every way as their lifesaver, honouring father and mother, keeping away from harming others by intentionally taking their life or loved ones, properties or good name or even allowing their mind dwell on such disgraceful deeds (Exod. 20.1–17).29 Think also about the Fruit of the Spirit, not many fruits but one and the same fruit: “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control” (Gal. 5.22–3). Love is the headline to which all the other values of a Christian life belong. The qualities of love, as described in 1 Cor. 13.4–7, are guidelines for parents on how we should be models for our children and what we should lead them to be: “Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud or rude” (1 Cor. 13.4). We should be patient and kind, thus teaching our children to be patient and kind. We should not show jealousy towards others but be models for our children of how not to let this unwanted feeling, so difficult to avoid, control us. We should learn how to rejoice over a God-given talent or a well-accomplished job without being boastful or proud, and teach our child the same. If we have control over our own behavior and do not become rude towards others in any circumstances, we can show our children how to stay polite and calm, even Aðalbjarnardóttir and Hafsteinsson 2001. NLT Study Bible, theme notes on “Children and Parents,” p. 1057. 29 Compare the Sermon on the Mount, especially Matthew 5.21–8. 27 28



Discipline and Love—Biblical Roots of Modern Christian Parenting

201

when someone offends us. Such a strengthening of personality should be our everyday concern, both for us and our children.

A response to the self-indulgence of our time “[Love] does not demand its own way. It is not irritable, and it keeps no record of being wronged” (1 Cor. 13.5). In these self-indulgent times, when everyone seems to expect everything to be “their-way,” not demanding our own way can be a challenge. Still, this is what we must teach our children, not giving in to their every wish—and doing the same when it comes to our own wishes. This is self-discipline! The same could be said about not being irritable. In my experience, children are very sensitive to the mood(s) of their parents and we have to be good role-models for them to not let our own irritation or tiredness or worries control the way we act towards others. If you are tired and irritable, simply tell your child that you are, without any need for explaining reasons in detail. Then, take a deep breath and control your mood, not letting it out on your child, who most of the time is not the actual reason for your irritation. When it comes to keeping record of being wrong, your child is best suited with an immediate but calm response to inappropriate behavior. What he or she did yesterday should not affect your attitude towards the child today. Remember Jesus’s words about mutual forgiveness in Matthew 6.12. “[Love] does not rejoice about injustice but rejoices whenever the truth wins out” (1 Cor. 13.6). It seems natural that our love for our children “rejoices whenever the truth wins out” in their lives, but we must also show them how “not to rejoice about injustice” (1 Cor. 13.6). When the family is gathered at the dinner table, what we say about others—our neighbours, politicians, our fellow churchgoers, the parents of our children’s classmates—will affect the way our children see us as Christians. Children often have a keen sense of double standards and that could destroy their trust in a parent’s faith. So let us watch our mouth and only rejoice over the good things happening to others, never the bad things! Verse 7 in 1 Corinthians 13 could be said to be the banner of Christian parenting: “Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures through every circumstance.” We are never to give up, never to lose faith, always to be hopeful, always to endure through every circumstance. I can only speak for myself, but without love and all the virtues imbedded in it, without God’s love for me, shown in Jesus Christ, without the gifts of the Holy Spirit, giving my children a sound upbringing would be impossible.

202

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

Let the words of Psalm 128 bring this all together, pointing to the real happiness that is found in loving God and following his ways. We are all on our way to Jerusalem, the heavenly city, pilgrims here on earth and only with the Lord can we find the way as children of our heavenly Father. Psalm 128 A song for pilgrims ascending to Jerusalem. 1 How joyful are those who fear the LORD— all who follow his ways! 2 You will enjoy the fruit of your labour. How joyful and prosperous you will be! 3 Your wife will be like a fruitful grapevine, flourishing within your home. Your children will be like vigorous young olive trees as they sit around your table. 4 That is the LORD’s blessing for those who fear him. 5 May the LORD continually bless you from Zion. May you see Jerusalem prosper as long as you live. 6 May you live to enjoy your grandchildren. May Israel have peace!

16

This is Our Family—Protestant Perspective Margriet Gosker

Introduction “This is our family” is the title of my contribution. It immediately raises the question: what is specific for a family and especially for a Christian family? And, if we speak of “family,” what do we mean? We may see the social group called a ‘family’ in many different ways. Are we talking about “blood relationship” as such? Do we mean the “nuclear” family—a father, a mother and their children or their adopted children also? Or do we mean the “extended family” or “kinship” as a larger net of interwoven familial relations?1 Theologians and pastoral counsellors have tried in the past to review and reformulate their understanding of family and family life and looked for new ways of pastoral family counselling.2 Being an ecumenical theologian I am aware of the fact, that all churches are— ecumenically speaking—part of different Confessional Families or Christian World Families.3 In this article I want to draw the attention of my readers to some important documents about family life. I will summarize Protestant views on family life, and show where Protestants mainly differ from other Christians, especially from Roman Catholic or Orthodox church families. I will present some important biblical highlights, showing how family life—in a biblical way—is especially connected with communion and justice in the Kingdom Groeger, G., “Familie, Familienverbände I, evang. Sicht,” H. Krüger, W. Löser, and W. MüllerRömheld, Ökumenelexicon, (Frankfurt am Main: Otto Lembeck, Josef Knecht 1987, 2nd edn), p. 372. Böszörményi -Nagy I. and J. Framo (eds), Intensive family therapy. Theoretical and practical aspects. (New York: Brunner and Mazel 1985, 2nd edn). 3 Since 1957 there have been annual informal gatherings of the secretaries of such organizations as the Anglican Communion, the Baptist World Alliance, the Lutheran World Federation, the Mennonite World Conference, the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the Salvation Army, the Disciples Ecumenical Consultative Council, the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, the International Old Catholic Bishop’s Conference, the Moravian Church Worldwide Unity Board, the Moscow Patriarchate (Eastern Orthodox), the Pentecostals, the Friends World Committee for Consultation, the World Convention of Churches of Christ, the World Evangelical Fellowship and the World Methodist Council. 1

2

204

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

of God. This important connection between communion and justice can be recognised as a Reformed concept. I will show the importance of these biblical insights for everyday life in our world today and finally I will refer to the recent merger of the two Reformed World Families, combining in their merger the emphasis on both communion and justice.

A CEC Document on Family Family life has changed a great deal in the Netherlands and especially in Western Europe in the last few decades. We have not only seen a considerable increase of divorces and single households, but also the introduction of same-sex marriages and what we call “reconstituted” or “patchwork” families. More and more people are living on their own today as single people, or they are living in a non-marriage relationship. Both parents often have part-time or full-time jobs, thereby having to leave their children in a nursery or with a child-minder for adequate childcare. Children are often born out of non-married relationships. There are many lone-parent families, and some parents marry for the second or third time after a divorce. As it is rightly stated in a recent CEC document on family: “It is not possible anymore to speak of ‘the family as a uniform entity’.” This CEC document appeared in July 2011.4 It is a very basic and fundamental document, not only dealing with classical family life (a mother, a father and their children), but also with all modern kinds of different and various patterns of family life. It is an important document, serving as a helpful contribution to the actual debate. The Executive Committee of the Church and Society Commission has adopted it, and it contains several recommendations to the European Union and its Members States in order to advance a “sustainable and supportive framework for families.” It begins by saying, that “families are a crucial pillar for the well-being and stability of society. There is no better way and indeed no more cost-effective way, for states or societies to provide the care, education and socialisation that families offer. States therefore need to give high priority to both the financial and the educational and social support of families. Not to do so will be extremely costly both in financial terms and in terms of social cohesion and solidarity.” It is questionable by what measure ecumenical documents, as such, can influence these realities. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t. But I am Europe and family Policy. Solidarity and Education at the Heart of our Societies. A Discussion Paper of the Church and Society Commission of the Conference of European Churches (2011), http://csc. ceceurope.org/fileadmin/filer/csc/Social_Economic_Issues/Europe_and_Family_Policy.pdf

4



This is Our Family—Protestant Perspective

205

grateful for this CEC document, which shows not only the great importance and strength of family life, but also shares honestly the weaknesses and the vulnerability of family life by confessing the reality, “that all too often, in the past as at the present day, families are experienced as places of violence and oppression rather than places of strength and support. The incidence and the legacy of child abuse are enormous – and far higher than most people are willing to contemplate.” This is not a surprise anymore these days, when we hear nearly every day about child abuse at all levels of both church and society in many countries. In an earlier document, published by the Vatican in 1981, Familiaris Consortio,5 we heard a lot about “love” and “protection” and about the “rights of all children” (§26), but this document does not mention the great dangers of child abuse and violation outside and especially within the church itself. Time was not ready for that in 1981, but times have changed now. In my country nowadays a special commission (the Commissie Deetman) investigated the reality of child abuse in Roman Catholic Church institutions during the period 1945–2010.6 The outcome (December 2011) was shocking—10,000 to 20,000 victims were made during the investigated period, most of them young boys.

A Roman Catholic point of view In the Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio (FC) we face a fundamental approach, focusing strongly on the concept of “communion.” The family is here a communion of persons: “In matrimony and in the family a complex of interpersonal relationships is set up—married life, fatherhood and motherhood, filiation and fraternity—through which each human person is introduced into the “human family” and into the “family of God,” which is the Church. Christian marriage and the Christian family build up the Church: for in the family the human person is not only brought into being and progressively introduced by means of education into the human community, but by means of the rebirth of Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio of Pope John Paul II to the Episcopate, to the Clergy and to the Faithful of the whole Catholic Church on the Role of the Christian Family in the Modern World, (Rom: Vatican, 1981), http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/ documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio_en.html 6 De Vries G., M. Monteiro, H. Merckelbach, P. Kalbfleisch, and N. Draijer (eds), Rapport van de commissie van onderzoek. Seksueel misbruik van minderjarigen in de Rooms-Katholieke Kerk, (2011), http://www.onderzoekrk.nl/fileadmin/commissiedeetman/data/downloads/eindrapport/2011 1216/Seksueel-misbruik-minderjarigen-RKK_Deetman-deel–1.pdf. http://www.onderzoekrk.nl/ fileadmin/commissiedeetman/data/downloads/eindrapport/20111216/Seksueel-misbruikminderjarigen_RKK_Deetman-deel–2.pdf 5

206

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

baptism and education in the faith the child is also introduced into God’s family, which is the Church. It is interesting to see that the birth of a human being, a child, is not only mentioned here as a coming into our earthly life but also as re-birth through baptism and Christian education. In this Roman Catholic view, marriage is a sacrament, as it is in the Orthodox churches, and FC states in §13: “Indeed, by means of baptism, man and woman are definitively placed within the new and eternal covenant, in the spousal covenant of Christ with the Church.” And in §57 it is said: “The Christian family’s sanctifying role is grounded in Baptism and has its highest expression in the Eucharist, to which Christian marriage is intimately connected.”

A Protestant point of view The Protestant Reformed definition of a Christian family is not available, and, I am sure, most Protestants will certainly not accept the idea that the “family of God” is identical with the Roman Catholic Church or with any other church denomination as such. All churches have different forms and ecclesiologies and we as Protestants have no pope, metropolitan or patriarch speaking for all of us. However, we still have a voice. Concerning family life, marriage—in our Reformed view—is not to be considered as a sacrament. We surely recognize married family life outside churches as legitimate. We are not opposed to contraception and family planning, and we are not characterizing it as an anti-life mentality (FC §30). We do not support the idea that the charisma of celibacy should be defended on the grounds of being superior to the charisma of marriage (FC §16). We do think it is a blessing when couples stay together for a lifetime, keeping their promises to do so, but we do not think that spouses—coming out of a broken marriage, who are left alone by their partners—are supposed not to enter anew to marriage again, even when they have been abandoned by their partner (FC §20), and we do not exclude from the Lord’s Supper spouses coming from a broken marriage (FC §84). We also pay attention to the big problems people have to face in interfaith marriages—in their everyday life—if they want to take seriously their own church and also the church to which the partner belongs. These ecumenical problems are not solved yet, but it is really time to solve them in the near future. Same-sex marriages are not always sustained or accepted in the Reformed world, but the issue is discussed vividly and widely. It was one of the main issues



This is Our Family—Protestant Perspective

207

within the Reformed Ecumenical Council around 1980. I will come back to that later. It is also still, nowadays, a discussion within the Community of Protestant Churches in Europe (CPCE), especially concerning the complicated question of whether or not a person living in a same-sex marriage or same-sex relationship can be ordained as a minister of word and sacrament. Some Reformed Churches are willing to do so, other churches see many obstacles to doing so, and are strongly opposed to it. All churches claim that their own position is biblical and according to the will of God. If I am asked about the position of my church, the Protestant Church in the Netherlands (PCN), I can say, that the PCN not only allows same-sex marriages for its members and ministers but is also willing to bless them in the name of the Lord. The PCN is really proud that this decision has been taken after a long and prayerful journey of nearly three decades. In the official liturgies of the PCN we find the possibility for the blessing of such relationships in several liturgies.7 It is true that, for Reformed theology, the authority of the Bible (Sola Scriptura) is a decisive factor. In the view of the Reformers the Bible contains all that is necessary for salvation. So, what is the Bible telling us about family? Family life is a very fundamental, but also a very comprehensive, issue. We could speak here about biblical marriage and the problem of promiscuity and polygamy in the Old Testament. We could speak here about true fatherhood, motherhood, brotherhood, sisterhood or childhood. A lot of issues could be taken up, but this is not the right place to do so. Rather I wish to focus here on just two issues—communion and justice.

Biblical highlights: Communion and justice We see in both the Old and New Testaments that family life can only be in good shape and in good communion if it is connected with justice. There is no communion without justice and there is no justice without communion. Family life has in itself the possibility of both unity and disunity. Families can be in harmony and be close together, like in Psalm 133: “It is truly wonderful, when relatives live together in peace. It is as beautiful as olive oil poured on Aaron’s head and running down his beard and the collar of his robe. It is like the dew from Mount Hermon, falling on Zion’s mountains, where the Lord has promised Dienstboek – Een Proeve. Deel II: Leven – Zegen – Gemeenschap, (Zoetermeer: Boekencentrum, 2004), pp. 797–859.

7

208

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

to bless his people with life forevermore.”8 But it is not always just harmony in families, as we know from a lot of biblical stories. There is also pride, jealousy, greed and injustice. Cain kills his brother Abel, because he is envious. Esau wants to kill Jacob, because he is very angry with his brother, Peninna sees Hannah as her worst rival, provokes her and irritates her, and so on….9 One of the Old Testament prophets, Micah, even said: “Don’t trust anyone, not even your best friend, and be careful what you say to the one you love. Sons refuse to respect their own fathers, daughters rebel against their own mothers, and daughters-in-law despise their mothers-in-law. Your family is now your enemy.”10 Jesus Christ himself must have known these words of the prophet Micah very well, I assume, because in his instructions to the twelve disciples he speaks words echoing this old prophecy, saying: “Don’t think that I came to bring peace to the earth! I came to bring trouble, not peace. I came to turn sons against their fathers, daughters against their mothers, and daughters-in-law against their mothers-in-law. Your worst enemies will be in your own family. If you love your father or mother or even your sons and daughters more than me, you are not fit to be my disciples.”11 So Jesus is criticizing the idea that blood relationship is the only or the highest criterion to deal with, because in the Kingdom of God other standards are valid. It is not very easy to deal with such radical biblical words as these about troubles and tensions between members of one and the same family. And the hypothesis which states that Micah was saying this in a pessimistic mood or so, is not a good solution. And if Jesus quotes Micah’s prophetic words, he is not in a pessimistic mood either, I think. Well, if we do have a closer look at these prophecies, they do not seem to be just about troubles and problems in families. In fact Micah criticises here, firmly, the society of his own time and above all the injustice of his fellow citizens. This is obvious. If there is any injustice there cannot be real communion, not even within families. Both Micah and Jesus are criticising here the very injustice and the attitude of greed which are not compatible with the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of the Lord always makes a choice for justice and peace.12 This is very clear in all three synoptic gospels. Mark, for example, tells us (3.21), that Jesus’ family thought he was crazy and they wanted to get him under control. Jesus reacted: “Who is my mother and who are my brothers?” Then he looked at the people sitting around him and said, “Here are my mother In this contribution the translation of the Holy Bible, Contemporary English Version (1999) is used. Gen. 4.8, Gen. 27.41, 1 Sam. 1.6. 10 Mic. 7.5–7. 11 Mt. 10.34–37. 12 Bukowski S., “Familie neu gelebt,” Junge Kirche 72(3) (2011): 58–60 (60). 8 9



This is Our Family—Protestant Perspective

209

and my brothers. Anyone who obeys God is my brother or sister or mother.” In Matthew’s version of this text Jesus pointed to his disciples and said, “These are my mother and my brothers! Anyone who obeys my Father in heaven is my brother or sister or mother.”13 And in Luke’s version Jesus answered, “My mother and my brothers are those people who hear and obey God’s message.”14 S. Bukowski commented here that in our times Jesus’ real brothers and sisters are those who have lost everything in poverty, persecutions and wars.15 I think this is just partly true. The very fact that you are a victim of crime or war does not make you a disciple, but anyone who obeys the will of God is Jesus’ brother or sister or mother.

Communion and justice in our world today In some places in this world where life is extremely difficult—because of starvation, war, injustice and violence—family life will be very difficult, of course. In such situations the church could and should behave as an “extended” family, as a Christian family, in order to be as caring and as helpful as possible to the brothers and sisters in need. As the Anglican bishop, Gitari of Kenya, told the Lambeth Conference as early as 1988: “With so many fractured and lonely families in the cities and so many people living alone, the church should see itself as an extended family, where every believer finds a home not just figuratively but literally. The church must work to build strong homes, exploring extended family models, so that each home truly is a church and the church truly a family.”16 I think this is a clear Anglican voice telling us not only that churches have the possibility and the task to act as Christian families, but also saying that communion and justice are inextricably connected.

Also the CEC Document Europe and Family Policy (2011) underlines on p. 4 the thought that all relations are based on the relation to God, and that this is a key element in the New Testament. 14 Mt. 12.48–50, Mk 3.33–5, Lk. 8.20–1. 15 “Denn vor allem Menschen wie diesen, die durch wirtschaftlichen Not, Krieg und Verfolgung alles verloren haben, gilt Jesu Zusage: Das sind meine Mutter und meine Brüder und Schwestern’.” Bukowski S., “Familie neu gelebt,” Junge Kirche 72(3) (2011): 58–60 (60). 16 Maldonado, J. E., “Family”; N. Lossky, J. Mïguez Bonino, J. S. Pobee, T. F. Stransky, G. Wainwright, and P. Webb (eds), Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement, (Geneva: World Council of Churches, 1991), pp. 415–17 (416). 13

210

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

A new reformed Christian world family Let me focus now on a broader interpretation of the meaning of a “Christian family.” The title of this article: “This is our family” happens to be also the title of a little booklet, containing five Bible Studies, edited by the newly-born World Communion of Reformed Churches, which came into existence in 2010.17 These five Bible Studies invite us to think about the call for unity, communion, peace and justice within the Reformed World Family itself. Now the question is: What does it mean to belong to such a Christian World Family? Christian World Communions are international organizations of churches of the same tradition or confession.18 They have been formed since the middle of the nineteenth century. The Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity is present at the meetings of the Secretaries of the Christian World Communions, and also the World Council of Churches is usually represented. Till 2010 the Reformed tradition was represented worldwide generally by the Reformed Ecumenical Council (REC) and the World Alliance of Reformed Churches (WARC). Both organisations were representing most of the worldwide Reformed Family. “Reformed World” is still the title of the quarterly newsletter of this World Communion of Reformed Churches.19 I must admit that as a Reformed Confessional Family we have a remarkable tradition of differences and disagreements; some Calvinists or Lutherans or Pentecostals are even proud of the fact that their identity is stronger than their unity. It has been proved in history: Protestants split up easily, especially if they consider that the truth—or better the Truth—is at stake. So nobody can be amazed that we did not have one, but several, united global Confessional Reformed Families. I am quite happy to mention here the fact that a new World Communion of Reformed Churches was founded in 2010 as a result of the merger of the two major Reformed Global Organisations: the World Alliance of Reformed Churches and the Reformed Ecumenical Council. Some smaller Reformed World Organisations like The World Reformed Fellowship, a merger of The Fellowship of Reformed Churches (WFRC) and The International Reformed Fellowship (IRF) still exist, and it would really have been a miracle if that was not the case.20 Nyomi S., R. van Houten, K. Greenaway, and P. Reamonn (eds), This is our Family Five Bible Studies (Geneva and Grand Rapids: 2010), http://www.urcsa.org.za/documents/this%20is%20our%20 family.pdf 18 The term “Christian World Communions” has been used since 1979. Other terms, used in the past to name families of church groupings: “World Confessional Church Groups,” “World Confessional Groups,” “World Confessional Bodies” and “World Confessional Families.” 19 Before 2010 it was the Quarterly of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches. 20 The World Fellowship of Reformed Churches (WFRC) was formed in 1994 by the Presbyterian Church in America, the National Presbyterian Church of Mexico, the Presbyterian Church of Brazil, and connected evangelical denominations from most of the countries of Latin America plus 17



This is Our Family—Protestant Perspective

211

As I pointed out, in family life communion cannot exist without justice, and justice cannot exist without communion. Communion without justice is often superficial, hypocritical or cheap. Justice has to be a precondition for communion; without communion justice will only be cold and sometimes even cruel.21 This is not only the case in basic family life but also in our so-called “Christian Confessional Family Life.” How about today’s World Communion of Reformed Churches? The World Alliance of Reformed Churches already existed in 1875 in different shapes.22 In 2004 WARC adopted the so called “Accra Declaration” or “Accra Confession” in order to move the member-churches to a new concept of mission, which takes the environmental threats to the earth and its poorest inhabitants into account. Justice has been the keyword for WARC ever since. REC was a smaller—more conservative—Reformed World Family, founded in the year 1946, just two years before the World Council of Churches was established in Amsterdam. The founding churches of REC (from the Netherlands, the United States and South Africa) did not want to join the World Council of Churches in 1948, but still felt the need of international relationships, with especially this kind of Reformed family, which was inspired by Abraham Kuyper, who had developed the idea of a church that should be in principle transnational.23 Most of the REC membership were members, which originally called itself a Synod. It later transformed itself into a Council in order to accommodate all its member churches in India, East Africa and the United States. The International Reformed Fellowship (IRF) was also organized in 1994 to join evangelical Reformed leaders from Korea, Indonesia, Taiwan, Japan, and all across Asia. The International Reformed Fellowship joined the World Fellowship of Reformed Churches in October 2000 which then changed the name to World Reformed Fellowship. Both fellowships were formed in the early 1990s to seek to promote the Reformed faith as a witness to the world of the Sovereignty of God in the redemption of his people through the Lord Jesus Christ. The World Reformed Fellowship makes the distinction of being a fellowship, not a council. The World Reformed Fellowship recognizes that barriers of distance, culture and language often make it difficult for a church to develop and maintain binding ties with a church or churches of another country, which is essential to the conciliar model. A fellowship provides the context in which churches, ministries and institutions may become acquainted with each other, and where their leaders may develop friendships and trusting relationships leading to closer, mutually beneficial cooperation. Members of a fellowship are not obligated formally to be responsible for one another’s positions or actions, but in an atmosphere of free association, may lovingly influence each other toward greater consistency in biblical faith and witness. 21 “Denn Gemeinschafschaft ohne Gerechtigkeit wäre ungerecht, unzulässig und billig. Gerechtigkeit ohne Gemeinschaft hingegen wäre hart wie ein Stein. Gerechtigkeit setzt Gemeinschaft immer voraus, denn ohne Gemeinschaft wird Gerechtigkeit kühl und fast grausam sein.” Gosker, M., “Zur Gemeinschaft berufen, der Gerechtigkeit verpflichtet,” Catholica 64(1) (2011): 38–52 (39). 22 It started 1875 as the Alliance of Reformed Churches throughout the World holding the Presbyterian System. In 1891, another branch combined in the International Congregational Council (ICC). In 1970 both organisations united as the World Alliance of Reformed Churches (WARC). 23 Koffeman L., “From RES to REC,” M. Gosker (ed.), A Man for all Seasons. Essays in Recognition of the Work of Richard van Houten for the Reformed Ecumenical Council 1987–2010, (Grand Rapids: 2010), pp. 71–7 (71).

212

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

churches. The REC was a Council of Reformed Christians, struggling for a long time with lots of theological and ethical issues, such as the boundaries of the church, racism, and especially homosexuality. The developments in the Reformed Churches of the Netherlands in the second half of the twentieth century concerning the acceptance of homosexuality was a big issue and caused a lot of disagreement within REC. These struggles threatened its cohesion, but did not break its community. Communion has still been the keyword for the REC during its existence. The merger of both organisations is a milestone on the ecumenical pilgrimage, but also a big opportunity for the new WCRC to strengthen its theology of communion as well as its theology of justice. “Called to communion, committed to justice.” That was the message of Grand Rapids, where the Uniting General Council gathered in June 2010. The main theme of the Assembly was based on “Unity of the Spirit in the Bond of Peace” (Eph. 4.3). Justice is the condition and the consequence of true unity, because the church lives in this world, longing for justice. The church is not an aim in itself.24 Unity, justice and communion are interrelated and there is a real interaction between these keywords in the Reformed Family. In its Strategic Plan the Executive Committee of WCRC affirmed again in May 2011 that there can be no communion without justice and no justice without communion. Any separation between the call to communion and the commitment to justice would ignore the basis of koinonia.25

Conclusion Family life is very important. It is one of the ways by which the Lord wants us to live with each other and to care for each other. How can we as Christians of all Christian World families accept the gifts of Christ and pass them on to our children, especially to future generations? I hope and pray, that there will be acceptance and love, but also justice and peace for every man and woman and for every child, that comes into this world.

Dressler-Kromminga, S., Die reformierten.Upd@te (2010) Nr. 3: 17–20. http://wcrc.ch/sites/default/files/StrategicPlanWebE.pdf

24 25

17

The Orthodox Christian Family in Present-day Society Ştefan Florea At the beginning, the family meant everything, it was the human reservoir of history, it was the first nucleus of civilization and it meant stability over time and hope for the future. If we see the family from the perspective of human existence, we can say that this is the source of life. The family is the first natural society which is based on the indissoluble bind between man and woman and it is completed with a new world where children appear. The family gives to man help and safety, from the first step he makes in life, and without it he cannot make another step forward. If God said, “it is not good for man to be alone on earth” (Gen. 1.26), it means that the family is, itself, the first institution, and mother of all others, the primary unit of the society, bearing in itself the whole life, just as a cell contains the material energy.

Family in the Orthodox biblical and patristic culture According to the teaching of the Orthodox faith, the family is the divine covenant, created by God Himself in Heaven, aiming to perpetuate the human race, to help each other to grow and develop the gifts that each man possesses, in an atmosphere of fellowship and love, enlightened and guided by the grace of the Holy Spirit, who blesses and sanctifies the relationship between man and woman. The family is based on the desire of God to create the man: male and female, a pair to complement or complete each other. In the Orthodox culture, the family constitution reflects the mystery of the Trinity. Concerning the Saviour’s word, “I and the Father are One,” in a similar way, man and woman, through their marriage, form a single being, in the light

214

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

of the Holy Trinity. In the light of Trinitarian communion, the family is the small church, ecclesia domestica, while the church is the large family. Family becomes a means to promote not only the values of this world but rather the values of eternal life, its purpose being that of expanding the boundaries of God’s kingdom (through the Sacrament of the Holy Matrimony, the body of Christ expands). The family is the first and the smallest cell of the social organism and a small part of the great community of Church. The problem of the family was, is and will be an issue of major interest for the Orthodox Church and Christian Morality,1 especially today, when we live in a society with a secular and secularizing social thinking. Like any other institution, the family is founded by an act, namely through marriage, meaning a connection for the whole life, willingly, of a man and a woman. Throughout its tumultuous history, mankind turned its back on Truth. The Truth, revealed to us “face to face” in Heaven, is darkened by the fall of man in sin. The man begins to alter the Truth, damaging harmony and reversing the normal relations in his behavior and life. Human society created, over time, a series of false myths such as the myth of dominant masculinity. According to this myth, the woman was subordinated to man, and the formation of a conjugal couple on this basis was seen as a necessity for the species. Christ—the Savior, coming into the world, rediscovered the Truth for people. The Gospel message, which consisted in the metanoia (μετ´ανοια), a changing from evil contemplation for the better, however, had to struggle with mental habits from thousands of years. The rapport between male and female and the conjugal union, receive their true value in Christianity. Christianity exalts marriage to its true dignity of the Holy Sacrament. Through Christ, marriage gains his ecclesiological and eschatological dimension. Christ—the Savior restored what it was at first. Therefore, man must not separate what God has joined. Thus, a new importance is given to marriage. Christ restores to the couple the heavenly state. In marriage we find a dimension of testimony. The mutual conjugal love, in which the two persons become one unit, makes their faces shine with the pure light that lit the union formed by the first human couple.2 The importance of the Wedding Sacrament Dumitru Gh. Radu, Repere morale pentru omul contemporan (Craiova: Mitropolia Olteniei Publishing House), p. 89. 2 René Broscăreanu, Despre Taina Sfintei Cununii (Ortodoxia., nr.4/1986), p. 104. 1



The Orthodox Christian Family in Present-day Society

215

follows from the fact that it restores the unity of man and woman torn apart by the original sin. Marriage and family are like a deep ocean on time waves, since the first pair of people until today, a synergy between the work of God and human involvement, a measure of love in both directions, between the Creator and the creation crown, vertically, and between the crowned ones, horizontally; it is human life itself covered by divine Providence and the icon of mysterious embrace between the Saviour Bridegroom and the Church Bride in the Pantries of the Eternal Kingdom. The family is a reflection of God’s image in man, manifested in its specific communion, as well as the intratrinitary communion.3 The family is a sanctuary, the holy home of all Christian virtues. The virtue of love is the foundation of the Christian family. The family involves communion, and communion is not possible without love. The Holy Fathers called the family an Image of the Holy Trinity. What is tri-personal communion within Divinity, is interpersonal communion in the family. As there is a unity of life and people, so here is a unity of life and love, but, also, a plurality of persons. Plurality does not destroy unity; unity does not destroy people, but perfects them. Of course, family is an imperfect image of the perfection of Trinitarian communion, but it is an image that shines in the world by virtue of its transcendent prototype. The family seen in God’s light itself becomes bright; it is transfigured, as a terrestrial image of the Trinity.4 Marriage is the mutual participation of spouses in God’s life; it is sharing the divine life. The marriage is more than a sum of instincts and impulses; it is the architecture of divine reasons. It is not defined by passionate trends, but it enriches, by its divine significance, these natural impulses.5 The family is an institution founded by God, right from the beginning, since he created man as male and female (Gen. 1.27). We might even say that God did not simply make individuals but created the family. The very biblical account of the creation of man, and then woman from his rib, expressed consubstantiality of complementary principles. “Masculine and feminine form the human archetypal monad: Adam-Eve.”6 Constantin Mihoc,Taina Căsătoriei şi familia creştinăîn învăţăturile Sfinţilor Părinţi din sec. al IV-lea (Sibiu: Teofania Publishing House, 2002), p. 11. 4 Nicolae Mladin, Studii de Teologie Morală (Sibiu: Arhiepiscopia Publishing House, 1969), p. 351–8. 5 Ilie Moldovan, Iubirea taina căsătoriei.Teologia iubirii (vol. I, Alba-Iulia: Episcopia Ortodoxă Publishing House, 1996), pp. 17, 19. 6 Paul Evdokimov, Taina iubirii. Sfinţenia unirii conjugale în lumina tradiţiei ortodoxe (Gabriela Moldoveanu (trans.), Bucureşti: Christiana Publishing House, 1994), p. 39–40. 3

216

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

In the light of Scripture, the Christian family is seen in all aspects: of its divine foundation of creation (Eph. 5.31), its monogamous constituency (1 Cor. 11.11), its indissolubility (Rom. 7.2), the union of spouses as a model of unity between Christ and Church, based on obedience and sacrificial love toward one another (Eph. 5.22–3), and their equality (Gal. 3.28). The dissolution of marriage and the destruction of the family are seen with reticence (1 Cor. 7.27), and immorality, the sin opposed most to family holiness, is severely stigmatized.7 The birth of children is one of the main goals of the family, receiving a soteriological dimension. A deeper understanding of Christian marriage reveals its true meaning, i.e. transforming love between the couple in a new, transfigured reality of God’s Kingdom.8 For as long as we see the family only from the human perspective and do not relate it to the Trinity and to the whole Church, we will not understand that the family carries the secret of divine love. Thus, despite two thousand years of history, the Christian family today is threatened by many dangers that come from inside it or outside: adultery, divorce, sins against nature, abortion, child abandonment, marriages of convenience, single parent families, etc. The Christian family, like all other educational institutions with a formative role, imbued with traditional values, is faced with a real crisis. The crisis situation should make us think, and the factors should be subjected to moral judgment. The traditional Christian values are in a real process of relativization, dilution or substitution. The clearest example of this is the freedom to follow their passions, and, if we say that they are ruled by desire, they will see us as enemies. In a world in which man is subjected to the process of disintegration, can we still hope to restore the sanctity and harmony of the family? There was, until recently, a sense of shame for sins, which today for the contemporary couple have become virtues: trial marriages without the secret bond of the sacrament of marriage, family planning, in vitro fertilization, open lewdness, sexual perversions of the couple or with other couples, mass abortions, etc. We live in a society of drama, in a world that, although it speaks about God, has turned Him into a long-term contract.

Constantin Mihoc, op.cit. (pp. 227–8). Ilie Moldovan, op.cit., vol. I (p. 95).

7 8



The Orthodox Christian Family in Present-day Society

217

Orthodox topics, challenges, and opinions Examining the biblical themes that are related to the nature of family relationships, we may suggest the following: a. the commitment must be based on a mature covenant, unconditional and bilateral; b. family life must be maintained in an atmosphere of grace which includes acceptance and forgiveness; c. family resources should be used to empower rather than to control the other; and d. intimacy should be based on a knowledge that leads to affection, understanding, communication and communion with others. Among behaviours that hurt the family environment are conditional love, egotism, perfectionism, hunting mistakes, efforts to maintain control, untrustworthy character, denial of feelings, and lack of communication.9 We witness, in today’s society, full of secularism and consumerism,the revival of a domestic paganism, which strongly advances towards a cult of nakedness, bringing ravages to the family from inside and outside. From inside, the betrayal of love and holiness, and, outside, by acquiring foreign models of authentic spirituality and Christian values. Today, marriage has come to be treated more like a contract, not as a Holy Sacrament, because over the years, and, as technology develops, the focus has shifted to the individual and their right to personal happiness. This means that the commitment to marriage as an institution is rejected if it interferes with the right to happiness and self-fulfilment for the individual. From the 1970s onwards, there was a massive increase in divorce rates in Western countries, extending to the Eastern parts. In modern marriage, the ongoing commitment is subjected to self-fulfilment. A marriage is considered successful if spouses describe themselves as happy. In many modern families, it seems, however, that valuable things have been removed along with the unwanted ones. Realizing that something is missing from the concept of commitment to marriage as an institution, many people give up the concept of commitment to individual happiness. This is a tragedy, given that the commitment is the cornerstone of the marriage relationship. The solution should include a biblical perspective, namely that God created humans in a relational context.10 Thus, marriage is not only a commitment to an institution but also a commitment to the relationship. Jack O. Balswich şi Judith K. Balswich, Familia, o perspectivă creştină asupra căminului contemporan (Tabita Gabor (trans.), Oradea: Casa Cărţii Publishing House, 2009), pp. 33, 35). 10 Ibid., p. 86. 9

218

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

Today, society challenges the fundamental structure of creation, namely the Christian family. A serious problem that tends to be chronic represents what is now known as a trial marriage. The trial marriage is a variant preferred by women who are professionally and financially independent and want to check, in the short term, whether the marriage could limit their professional ascent. In an attempt to keep (apparently) their independence, the two partners feel morally and emotionally responsible individually, without thinking of the legal implications of this relationship. Often, even if the partners want to get married, they delay the moment, so that they almost completely forget it. In addition to trial marriages, there are other alternative family forms. Christians must be aware that, as a result of secular influence in modern society, gay marriage, group marriage, single planned parenthood and cohabitation are now seen as acceptable alternatives. Therefore, there is now a relativistic tendency to re-create the family in any ways that would suit individual requirements. The emergence of genetic technologies, such as artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization, surrogate motherhood, outside pregnancy and cloning,11 makes it possible for a person or group of persons in any combination to form a family for a newborn child. According to the traditional concept, the family was considered as ‘the basic cell of the society’ and thus was protected by law; there was no question of trial marriage, it was considered illegal. Now, this relationship is no longer viewed with disdain or distrust. It has won new followers and it exists alongside the traditional family. However much some people try to present arguments in support of this deviation from normality, trial marriages will remain increasingly a cause of family destruction. They simply represent cohabiting or lust.

Different choices versus spiritual therapy Today, more and more psychologists, sociologists and social workers are trying hard to understand the critical issues of the family, trying all sorts of methods, drawing on theories increasingly foreign to the essence of the Christian family. They use psychotherapies that hope to take the contemporary family out of the crisis, without even looking at the beginning, that has lasted to our time from the first family, losing sight of the true values that should prevail in the family, Ibid., p. 339.

11



The Orthodox Christian Family in Present-day Society

219

without which the family can become a dangerous hybrid for society and civilization in general. Nowadays, there is a form of family therapy that could be defined as any intervention focused on the family, not just the individual, which aims to change patterns of interaction between members. The behaviour of an individual in the family makes sense only in the context of and in conjunction with other members’ behavior in the system to which it belongs. That is why “systemic” family therapy is a complete and comprehensive approach to the entire family system, which aims to exceed the limits imposed by individual psychotherapeutic approaches by studying interactions between members, patterns of communication and relationships between them, involving the whole family in the therapeutic approach. Of course, this method is just another attempt to help families which are not built on spiritual meaning and the spiritual primordial family. Not less damaging to family life are the mixed marriages, i.e. those between Orthodox-Christians and partners of other denominations, Catholic, Protestant, non-Protestant or non-Christian religions: Mohammedan, Hebrew, Buddhist, Hindu, Brahmans and others. Regarding the conditions of life in our country, when the market economy is becoming increasingly real and international, especially in commercial life, there is an increase in the number of mixed marriages concluded between Romanians, especially women, and foreigners of all nationalities and all faiths or religions or Christian denominations. Not having the same faith, the same language and the same customs and cultural and family traditions, naturally, these couples make their own way of life that differs from the usual or traditional, with negative effects on both partners. Most of these partners live unbound by marriage and their children very often remain unbaptized. However, the religious aspect is perhaps the most affected.

Orthodox reflections and propositions The position of the Orthodox Church on mixed marriages is a subject to be discussed on the Orthodox Holy and Great Council. Regarding the synodic decisions, The Second Pre-Synodic Conference in Chambesy, on 3–12 September 1982, reached the following points of view, which would be submitted to the council for approval: a. Marriage between Orthodox and Heterodox is prohibited according to canonical exactitude (akriveia). However, it can be celebrated by descent and love to man, with the express condition that babies resulting from this marriage should be baptized and educated in the

220

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

Orthodox Church. Local Orthodox Churches can decide on the application of dispensation according to determined cases and taking into account the special pastoral needs; b. Marriage between Orthodox and non-Christians or unbelievers is a rejected category according to canonical exactitude. Local Orthodox churches can still make decisions about these marriages for applying these pastoral dispensations towards the Orthodox husbands, taking into account their specific pastoral needs.12 But, as well as these challenges of today’s society, the Christian family is stricken more and more by other dangers which make “injuries,” hard to heal. These injuries occur as divorce, abortion and adultery. It is well known that Christ—the Savior Himself condemned divorce several times (Mt. 19.8–9, Mt. 5.31–2, Mk 10.2–9, Lk. 16.18), yet, the possibility of divorce having adultery as a cause is shown in the New Testament. This is because indissolubility of marriage is understood as a total suppression of human freedom. However, the New Testament does not allow remarriage after divorce. The Holy Fathers, mostly, followed St. Paul in discouraging any form of remarriage for widowed or divorced individuals. At the same time, the Church never considered the Holy Gospel to be a legal prescription of human society that can be adopted quickly. The Gospel should be accepted as involvement, as an earnest of the kingdom to come. It requires a constant personal struggle against sin and evil, but this can never be reduced to a system of legal obligations or duties.13 Therefore, even if state laws allow divorce and remarriage, the Church never recognized or instituted divorce. Divorce was considered a great sin, but the Church has never ceased to give sinners another chance, being ready to take them back if they repented. In Europe, the divorce rate has doubled or even tripled in the last 30 years (Denmark, Sweden, Norway, UK, Switzerland, Netherlands, Hungary, Russia, and Poland). In countries where the family suffered the most profound changes – attitude towards marriage, nuptial behaviour, fertility, the situation of women in family and society – divorce records the highest levels. From 1950 to 1995 there was a reduction in the average duration of marriage at the time of divorce from 12–15 years to 8 years. Romania has one of the lowest divorce rates. Since 1965, the divorce rate increased continuously reaching 2 per thousand. Because of the establishment Nicolae D. Necula, “Implicaţiile pastorale şi ecumenice ale căsătoriilor mixte,” http://www.crestinortodox.ro/editoriale/implicatiile-pastorale-ecumenice-casatoriilor-mixte–70028.html John Meyendorff, Căsătoria-perspectiva ortodoxă (translated by Cezar Login, Cluj-Napoca: Patmos Publishing House, 2007), pp. 66, 67, 69.

12

13



The Orthodox Christian Family in Present-day Society

221

of some legal regulations, the divorce rate remained below 1 per thousand by 1974, and thereafter fluctuated at around 1.5 per thousand. After 1990 the divorce rate began to increase, but did not reach the quotas in Northern Europe.14 Another cause which destroys and dissolves Christian families is adultery. Adultery is a sin, a serious violation of God’s will and law. It is always too much lust, unlike the sin of lust committed by someone who was never bound by the Sacrament of Marriage or did not sin with someone who was so bound. Adultery is disobedience to God and co-work with the devil. Adultery deforms human being, stripping off the cloth of virtue, and disfiguring even the crown of virtue, love, because the impulse to sin does not come from true love, but from vulgar love that takes man away from God.15

Jesus Christ in the Sermon on the Mount, said: “You have heard that it was said a long time ago: ‘You shall not commit adultery’. But I say to you: that whoever looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her ​​in his heart.” (Mt. 5.27–8). Through its very nature, lust is obsessive. It concentrates in an unhealthy way on someone who is reduced to a mere object. Lust which brings adultery breaks the link established between spouses through the Sacrament of Marriage.16 The bond of marriage can only be sustainable if it is built on trust and loyalty. Therefore, adultery is a fall from grace in the marriage. Adultery is an abominable phenomenon, treason and apostasy, a bad beginning in the spiritual world where it is consumed. Infidelity is attracting a spouse that will lead to nothingness, a denial of being, of God’s creation, a negation that contains resistance to grace, which the rebellion will obstinately oppose. This sin interferes where grace has ruled and the divine fullness is replaced by a gap of nothingness in God’s creation itself.17 If we think and talk about other evils which are affecting us today, and also both the technologically developed societies and the less developed ones, we will undoubtedly stop at the abortion issue. Procreation, maintenance, care, growth and preparation of the child for social life are the central concern of the family. The church teaching on this matter is very clear, that abortion is a Ion Mihăilescu, Familia în societăţile europene (Bucureşti: Universitatea din Bucureşti Publishing House, 1999), p. 106. 15 Constantin Mihoc, op.cit., pp. 166, 168. 16 John Breck, Darul sacru al vieţii (tratat de bioetică) (2nd edn, P. S. Dr. Irineu Pop Bistriţeanul (trans.), Cluj-Napoca: Patmos Publishing House, 2003), p. 115. 17 Ilie Moldovan, op. cit. (vol. II, Alba-Iulia: Episcopia Ortodoxă Publishing House, 1996), pp. 159–60. 14

222

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

morally reprehensible act, i.e. an act of destruction of an innocent human life. God created life in all its aspects, and, in terms of human life, God showed great care. Human life is not determined only by the human creation from earth, but especially by the breathing of God’s living-maker. Because it is the bearer of God’s image, every human being, regardless of age, status or physical condition, has a real dignity and requires great respect. Therefore, life and especially human life is not the product of chance, and perpetuating human life is not the result of chance and not exclusively the product of human efforts. Abortion is such a foreign practice to Christianity, known in a world where there is no fear, nor love of God. The Holy Fathers state that abortion is infanticide18. It is even worse, as it is killing a human being unable to defend himself. The subject of abortion, today, cannot be limited only to those who practice it. It is an issue of moral conscience for all mankind,19 since human life itself is seen as a gift of God for which everyone is responsible. We need to know that, since the beginning of the Church, intentional killing of embryos was recognized as a radical failure of love, as one of the worst offences, whether or not the embryo was a person. An American obstetrician concluded that the fetus was a separate human being, with specific personal characteristics; it was an entire human person.20

Conclusions Looking back to what we said earlier, we see that the Christian family is extremely challenged and changed by modernity. We cannot succumb simply because of the march of progress, adjusting the family’s lifestyle to any innovations introduced by society. Rather, challenges—fragmentation of consciousness, communication complexity, community disintegration and prevalence of consumer goods—are essential to the formation of new ideas about how to ensure a positive environment where the family can glorify God and its members can bring, through relations between them, evidence of salvation and freedom offered in Jesus Christ.21 Ştefan Iloaie, Cultura vieţii-aspecte morale în bioetică (Cluj-Napoca: Renaşterea Publishing House, 2009), pp. 205–6. 19 Dumitru Gh. Radu, Repere morale pentru omul contemporan (Craiova: Mitropolia Olteniei Publishing House, 2007), p. 99. 20 Ibid., p. 102. 21 Jack O. Balswich, şi Judith K. Balswich, Familia, o perspectivă creştină asupra căminului contemporan (T. Gabor (trans.), Oradea: Casa Cărţii Publishing House, 2009), p. 342. 18



The Orthodox Christian Family in Present-day Society

223

Although modernity seeks to assess family life based on scientific and empirical assumptions, cultural postmodernism embraces all forms of family life. To avoid the modernist trap of idealization of certain forms of cultural and family time, postmodernity goes to the other extreme and shatters any hope of having any evaluation criteria of the family’s morality. Regarding the importance of the Christian family in today’s society, the Romanian Orthodox Church dedicated the year 2011 to the family, as The Anniversary Year of Holy Baptism and Holy Matrimony, since Holy Baptism and the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony is the base of the Christian family. Concerning the issue of the Christian family today, Patriarch Daniel said: The family is the top of creation, and also the place or the environment in which man begins to understand the mystery of God’s parental love. But, weakening the bond of spiritual love between man and God in the secular society, the conjugal family is now in a deep spiritual crisis, in confusion, and without horizon, being limited to biological and terrestrial. Difficulties faced by families in contemporary society are not only economic (material poverty increasing, unemployment, insecurity of tomorrow), but also moral (abortion, divorce, abandonment, libertinism, drugs, human traffic) and, also, spiritualreligious (sectarianism, fanaticism and religious proselytizing). Toward these problems, the Church is called to pay particular attention to the Christian family, defending its value as a life blessed by God in order to gain salvation or eternal life.’22

In conclusion, the sacramental vision of the Church on family life (life as a sacred gift of God), and inter-human and inter-family relations, is vital to the public perception of the contemporary family, suffering as it does from the many weaknesses mentioned here. The risk of reducing the family, and all the things that this implies, to a purely human, legal or social convention is balanced by the adoption of the Christian vision of society that the Church has offered to mankind for centuries.

Daniel, Patriarhul Bisericii Ortodoxe Române, Demnitatea şi responsabilitatea familiei preotului în viaţa Bisericii, http://www.crestinortodox.ro/stiri/crestinortodox/demnitatea-responsabilitatea-familiei-preotului-viata-bisericii–123721.html

22

18

New Challenges in the Religious Education of Generation Z(the Youngest Children) Dana Hanesová

Introduction In our study we would like to present the context, dilemmas and some beneficial approaches to Religious Education of the youngest Generation Z in the context of contemporary society. The question is if Religious Education in schools may be viewed as a real help to families in their effort to raise their children and in allowing them to develop spiritually, mentally, socially and emotionally. The notion generation1 can be defined from the sociological and cultural point of view as a group of people who were born in the same age-range, share a similar cultural experience, and were influenced by certain events and people in their lives. Each Generation can be described by its distinctive characteristics: — Importance of worldview/beliefs, attitudes toward ultimate issues, central values (Who am I? Where am I? Where is the problem? How can it be corrected?); — Relationships (family, other relationships, authorities); — Style of learning and working, motivation to learn and work; — Moral values/attitudes to authorities, money, sex, shopping, technology, work ethic, clothing styles, entertainment.

Who is Generation Z? At the beginning it is necessary to present a brief description of the societal context and observation of the currently youngest generation of children N. Brádňanská Ondrášek, “Od generácie Y ku generácii Z: zamerané na generáciu Y,” Od generácie Y ku generácii Z (Banská Bystrica: KTK PF UMB, 2012), pp. 9–26 (9).

1

226

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

(called Generation Z by sociologists). Of course, the following generalizations offer only a black-and-white picture of a very complex issue, as different approaches to this topic are available. Noema Brádňanská Ondrášek2 is one of the first Religious Education experts who pointed out the need to take the sociological characteristics of Generation Z into consideration while preparing the Religious Education curriculum in Slovakia. Several of her conclusions are introduced in this part. Afterwards their impact on parents and teachers is described. So who is Generation Z? Generation Z  is the youngest generation of children, born after 2000 (or according to some authors after 1995) either to the older Generation X (born between 1963/64 to 1980/83) or to the subsequent Generation Y that started in the early 80s. To be able to work with Generation Z it is necessary to understand specific features of both Generation Z and their parents, Generation Y. Generation Y can be characterized as the first generation of protected, “worthy” children. In the USA and European Western societies, the well-being of children started to dominate the national debate over most family issues. The safety of children in cars or playgrounds, warnings about dangerous products for kids, or even bringing to light facts about the sexual abuse of toddlers—those were just a few of the hot topics in the media. Besides the boom of protected babies, two other very significant phenomena shaped the social well-being of Y: the unprecedented opportunities of information technology and the outbreak of terrorism (Oklahoma City bombing 1995; Columbia High School massacre in Colorado, 1999; and of course, the terrorist attack in New York on 11 September 2001). Andy Frost,3 one representative of Generation Y, commented on his generation in the following way: We are the generation who has never had it so good. We can choose who we want to be. We can choose how we want to look. We can choose the brands that define us and our next sexual experience. But at the same time, we are desperately trying to understand our true identity. We yearn for authentic loving community. We long for a place where we can experience healing […] We are only ever a moment away from being entertained. We have 3D IMAX cinemas, iPods and Kindles. We have opportunities galore – to travel, to learn and to experience. But at the same time we are a generation desperate for reality, depth

N. Brádňanská Ondrášek, “Od generácie Y ku generácii Z: zamerané na generáciu Z,” Od generácie Y ku generácii Z (Banská Bystrica: KTK PF UMB, 2012), pp. 114–41. 3 A. Frost, “Never had it so good?” (Catalyst by CARE, UK www.care.org.uk). 2



New Challenges in the Religious Education of Generation Z

227

and hope. Behind the charade we are lamenting […] We are the generation of walking contradictions.

According to American sociologists,4 it seems that Generation Y is the first post-national, post-racist, post-literal, post-scientific, post-sexual, posthuman, post-traumatic, post-therapeutic, post-ethical, post-institutional, post-Christian, post-ideological, post-party and post-political generation with situational, pragmatic and compartmentalized ethics. Though statistically they are less religiously active (going to church) than the previous generations, they are inclined toward noticeable traditional tendencies in their beliefs and practices and seem to have a stronger sense for spirituality. Not only terrorism and digitalization, but also global warming, global economic crisis, development of multi-culturalism, consumerism, pluralism, individualism, and especially the moral decay of societies—all these phenomena have had a tremendous impact on families with offspring belonging to Generation Z, around and after the year 2000. Children of Generation Z are sometimes called also iGen, Gen Tech, D Generation, Digital native, the New Millennials, the Zero Motivation Generation, The Code Generation, The Generation M (Multi-task), The Kaleidoscopers, The Neo-Disney Gen, The Generation Comic Book Movies, The Futuristic Gen, The Corporation Gen, The New Silent Gen, The Gamers Gen, The Gen now, The Generation Wherefore?, The Green Paper Gen, The Net Generation, The Generation @, and so on. In comparison with Generation Y, they are even more individualistic; very web savvy; real digital natives. The range of mobiles, Internet and information technology does not allow them a moment in which they are not connected with many people around the world simultaneously. Sometimes they are called Generation of “lost” childhood because they spend a lot of time sitting at the computer or attending many extracurricular activities; and thus have little time for traditional play. Australian editors of “The Time Out Sydney” web page5 summarized the fundamental characteristics of Generation Z in the form of “The Ten commandments for Generation Z”:   1 You shall always use the computer (at school, later on in life at work).   2 You shall always be connected. E. H. Greenberg and K. Weber, Generation We: How Millennial Youth are Taking Over America And Changing Our World Forever (Emeryville: Pachatusan, 2008), p. 55. “The Ten Commandments of Generation Z,” Time Out Sydney, http://www.au.timeout.com/sydney/ kids/features/1565/the-ten-commandments-of-generation-z

4

5

228

  3   4   5   6   7   8   9 10

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

You shall always have your mobile on you. You shall use your computer for computer games. You shall have many friends that you will never meet face to face. You shall have a second life (in the cyber world). You shall be extremely independent. You shall do a lot of things simultaneously (multi-tasking). You shall always demand/desire something. You shall create a new coded language (in sms or emails).

Generation Z appreciates internet social networking, e-communication, spending a lot of time in a virtual world. Their sense of community has been formed by the Internet which enables them to have live contact with many friends at the same time. Regular surfing through the World Wide Web makes the whole world—the global village—their home where it is a problem to build deeper personal relationships. Thus also the cultural difference between Generation Z and the previous generations seems to be growing. Regarding parent-child relationships, on the one hand, Generation Z seems to be more attached to their parents (Generation Y) as they might have more overlapping values with their parents than Generation Y had. For example, the father who likes computer games might enjoy playing them with his 10-year-old son, and both of them would have fun. Or a  mother likes to go shopping with her little daughter as both of them want to buy some clothes of the same brand. On the other hand, it is true that each generation is very strongly influenced by their parents’ educational methods. Parents of Generation Z, in comparison with the previous generations, often struggle with setting clear boundaries to Generation Z because of fear of traumatizing them. As some parents shared with Religious Education teachers, they are afraid they “have no influence upon their children.” They realize they don’t have any authority and feel very insecure when dealing with their own children. Some educationalists and psychologists warn that the way children are treated allows them to turn into tyrants in their behavior toward adults. The book Why are our Children Becoming Tyrants by Michael Winterhoff 6 in 2008 became a bestseller in Germany. In many Western countries, television programs about super-nannies are not only popular but also a tragic illustration of how more and more parents are not able to fix the wild behavior of their children. M. Winterhoff, Warum unsere Kinder Tyrannen werden: Oder: Die Abschaffung der Kindheit (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2008).

6



New Challenges in the Religious Education of Generation Z

229

Another factor worsening the whole situation with Generation Z’s upbringing is divorce, so common in civilized countries. Parents often pamper their children to compensate for the trauma caused by the divorce. It may happen that the children do not recognize any good models in their surroundings, in which they would also recognize authorities. Winterhoff distinguishes three basic malfunctions in the relationship between parents—or other adults—and children: — Their relationship remains a kind of partnership when the adult sees the child on the same level as himself/herself. In this case the educator applies predominantly the method of explanation and comprehension. At first sight, the concept of friendship, strong desire to live in harmony and rejection of the inner family hierarchy seems very positive. But the children often turn out to be egoistic. They do not honor their parents as they do not have enough opportunities to develop the ability to deal with frustration, train patience, and develop good working habits. — In the projection-type of relationship, the adult tries to protect and fulfill his/her need to be loved by the child: “Many parents compensate for the growing loss of orientation and recognition they feel today according to the following motto: even if nobody out there loves me, my child at least should do so.”7 The adult is afraid that the child might reject him/her. The parent is constantly putting himself/herself in the child´s shoes and hence becomes too lenient with the child. — In case of a symbiosis, parents do a lot of things instead of their child. They pardon them everything and do not set any boundaries. They do not see that their child is cheeky. They feel attacked when somebody warns them about that. The fact is that if the adult does not set any boundaries the child stops developing properly. The child does not take other people into consideration. It seems that the child is over the adult and can manipulate him/her, rule, or assert his/her own will. In many cases parents allow their children to watch the media without supervision. They allow them to have television in their bedrooms so they can watch it late at night. In other families the television is on all day long, even if there are erotic scenes on. Thus Generation Z children are often confronted with content for which they are too young and they do not understand nor can they process “The Zero Motivation Generation.” Interview with a child and adolescent psychiatrist Michael Winterhoff, http://www.goethe.de/wis/fut/bko/en6480095.htm

7

230

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

it. The result of such “freedom” is mental instability (fears, phobias, failures of social behavior). What is the impact of the presence of Generation Z upon the educational process? What are the relationships between teachers and pupils? Some observers depict the situation in a rather bleak way. One of their comments is that, nowadays, more and more teachers struggle to deal with the children who live in such a different world. They find it difficult to apply their professional competence when setting behavioral rules and supervising their implementation in a classroom of 20–30 early age children. The teachers are required to be consistent but, unfortunately, more and more parents question their pedagogical intervention and complain about the teacher traumatizing their child. They do not like it, for example, if the teacher uses a red pen to correct their child’s test or if the teacher takes the child’s mobile phone away during the lessons. There is a growing tendency to consider bringing such teachers to court because of a child’s complaint. It is important to realize that any behavioral problems between parents and children transform into behavioral problems at school. Applying Winterhoff ’s observations to the situation of formal education, the first two forms of relationship form very headstrong children, but they are still manageable, though with unnecessary difficulty. A child raised in symbiosis (usually with a  single/divorced mother) is completely unmanageable. Such a child causes huge problems at kindergartens and primary schools as he/she has almost zero frustration tolerance, cannot follow orders and has no discipline and no respect for anybody. Parents as well as teachers are only objects for this child. Another important issue influencing the effectiveness of the educational process is the characteristic of learning styles and motivation to learn and work. Generation Z seems to be ambitious. However, lack of ability to work hard in the same sense as the previous generations might be a point of tension between pupils and teachers. On the other hand, children of Generation Z seem to be much more flexible, and able to text, read, watch, and talk and eat all at the same time. They get more easily impatient being used to simple ‘clicking’ for answers and information. Checking the phone all the time might cause deterioration of language and social skills. According to some informal discussions with teenagers five seconds feel like hours while a search is loading in front of them; the thought of reading through a book to get an answer would feel like an eternity. Maybe due to this constant multitasking, more and more children are diagnosed with attention deficit disorder (ADD).



New Challenges in the Religious Education of Generation Z

231

Socio-moral and spiritual challenges of Generation Z in Slovakia In the first part the context in which Generation Z is growing up was described. Now the question is if, and to what extent, these general sociological characteristics apply to children in a specific ethnic/cultural/socio-religious region, for example, in Slovakia. Due to the global world market and media, the youngest generation of children in democratic Slovakia experience the same information and communication technology (ICT) pressure on their private lives, similar fears of terrorism, of global warming, effects of global economic crisis, of multi-tasking, of the ADD boom, of the uncontrolled media power, and so on, as children in other democratic countries do. In this way they also could be called the D generation or The Futuristic Gen, and so on. In our study we focus on the sociomoral and spiritual needs of the Generation Z in Slovakia. Since the Velvet revolution in 1989, a few Slovak researchers focused on investigating the moral and spiritual needs (struggles, worries, joys, attitudes and values) of children. Recently, several research studies dealing with the moral and spiritual needs and development of children in Slovakia have been carried out also by researchers at the Department of Theology and Christian Religious Education, Faculty of Education, Matej Bel University in Banska Bystrica. Though the authors did not mention the concept of Generation Z in their research reports, they addressed the moral and spiritual needs of Generation Z in Slovakia. Most of these studies were accomplished in groups of children who attended classes of catechesis (in churches) or of Religious Education (in schools). In her research, Viktória Šoltésová8 strove to analyze some of the moral characteristics of the youngest generation of Roma children in Slovakia and the development of their moral values. One of her aims was to present the characteristics of catechetical work with Roma children attending primary schools. She focused on verifying items related to internalization of religiosity and on measuring other values (such as forgiveness to others and to oneself, willingness to help others). She found out that more intrinsically religious Roma children were more pro-socially oriented; their scores were higher in the dimensions of friendliness and forgiveness.9 This research also indicated a positive correlation V. Šoltésová, “The Influence of Religious Education in the Value Orientation of Roma children – Vplyv náboženskej výchovy na hodnotovú orientáciu rómskych detí” (Unpublished doctoral dissertation; Banská Bystrica: KETM PF UMB, 2008). 9 V. Šoltésová, “Die Religiosität der Romakinder in der Slowakei” (Kalloch, Ch. and Schreiner, M., “Gott hat das in Auftrag gegeben” Mit Kindern über Schöpfung und Weltentstehung nachdenken, (Jahrbuch für Kindertheologie; Band 11; Stuttgart: Calwer, 2012), pp. 185–97 (196). 8

232

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

between faith in God and pro-social sentiments declared in an effort to help people to suffer less and feel better. Roma children who were attending a systematic catechetical course/Religious Education expressed a deeper level of desire to be nearer to God/ in closer relationship with the Lord Jesus. Adriana Bravená-Maďarová10 investigated the moral development of Generation Z using the Czecho-Slovak adapted version of Kohlberg’s dilemmas.11 The research took place in both denominational and state primary schools. It was found that, though the three main childhood moral stages12 did not differ very much from school to school, the concentrated effort of the teacher of Ethics or of Religious Education, appropriate to the age of the children, had evidently its meaning and might achieve positive results in long-term exposure. Noema Brádňanská,13 and later on also Dana Hanesová,14 described children’s images of God. They found out that most children were able to articulate their personal ideas of God. Their images of God were influenced by: a) their family background (Christian/non-Christian; b) the school background (the influence of Religious Education/Ethics Education); c) church background; and d) societal context (for example their drawings of heaven with angels clearly were reminiscent of some computer games characters). Dana Hanesová15 accomplished several research studies among about 150 primary school children during the years 2011–13. One of them showed that only 1–2 percent of children were able to articulate the Christian meaning of Easter or Christmas or even to explain the symbols of these festivals. It seems to confirm the presumption that parents of Generation Z hesitate to put too much religious pressure on their children. In some western societies the majority of parents gradually decide not to bring their child to church because they are afraid of “too much involvement” in their children’s religious decisions. On the other hand, maybe thanks to this “liberating” attitude of parents opening the way for their children to search on their own, the children do not hesitate to express any of their opinions on moral and religious matters. A. Bravená Maďarová, “Náboženská výchova a  morálny rozvoj detí mladšieho školského veku” (Unpublished doctoral dissertation; Banská Bystrica: KETM PF UMB, 2011). J. Kotásková and I. Vajda, Test morální zralosti osobnosti (Bratislava: Psychodiagnostické a didaktické testy, 1983). 12 Heteronomous, transitory—between heteronomous and autonomous, autonomous 13 N. Brádňanská, “Formovanie obrazu Boha u detí mladšieho školského veku” (Unpublished doctoral dissertation; Banská Bystrica: KETM PF UMB, 2008). 14 N. Brádňanská Ondrášek and D. Hanesová, “Theologizing with Children: Research on Children’s Images of God in Slovakia,” F. Kraft, R. Friedhelm, A. Roose, and G. Bűttner (eds) Symmetrical communication? Philosophy and Theology in Classrooms across Europe (Loccum: Religionspädagogisches Institut, 2011), pp. 75–84. 15 Forthcoming. 10

11



New Challenges in the Religious Education of Generation Z

233

They can do it even though they might sound totally contrary to the content transmitted by the teacher. They like to ask questions, to philosophize and theologize about ultimate issues. The following transcript is an example of an open discussion with a group of nine-year-old students (S) with their teacher (T). Some teachers of the older generation might consider it to be rude. T: According to your experiences so far, what do you think: What is God like? What are his characteristics? What is he like? S1: good S2: sometimes yes, yes, from time-to-time S3: not good T: When has He not been good? S3: when I am angry T: Is He not good then? Why? Is that anger not your problem? S2: because He let people kill Him S3: He should not have allowed that, He should have fought. T: Was it a mistake that He did not fight? SS: yes …

Another example might be a discussion about Sundays. The teachers asked the pupils if they liked Sundays. Some of them agreed, but some admitted quite frankly that they did not like Sundays because they had to go to church. According to the four-years-long observation of Generation Z by Dana Hanesová,16 these children seem to be more altruistic—wanting “to save” the world and nature—than the previous generations. They express huge empathy towards homeless, sick, outcast, hungry, poor or disabled people. They may return to more traditional values as they are troubled by social justice issues, fairness, and absence of discrimination on the basis of race, religion, gender or sexuality. Generation Z are more consistent about their likes and dislikes, potentially less faddish—more likely to purchase with their hearts rather than their egos. Generation Z favors platforms and a medium that they can mold. They do not have set patterns for viewing or listening. In advertising they prefer humor above other characteristics. Generation Z has a desire to be entertained and to follow good content. Generation Z appears to care less about fame and fortune, but more about happiness. In their pictures describing happy/unhappy people as well as rich/ poor people, more than three fourths of the children preferred drawing pictures of their family, good relationships, as opposed to drawing pictures connected Forthcoming.

16

234

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

with material wealth, money, and so on. There were no pictures of expensive cars or motorbikes. What are the highlights in the everyday life of Generation Z? The most appreciated joyful moments in the life of majority of the respondents were spending time with their family and friends. They appreciate new siblings and new friendships. Usually they look forward to Mummy’s/Daddy’s return from a business trip. There are also “smaller” joys in their lives. “I am very pleased because I have not argued with my brother this whole week.” “I have created a new game.” “I have finished reading this book.” “My Daddy has played with me.” Some girls have a good feeling after helping the parents to clean their house. Of course, children are also happy to receive a nice gift or have a chance to have pizza, ice cream or to play computer games/playstation/watch a film. What is Generation Z mostly worried or sad about? Of course, the saddest event is the death of a family member. Children are very sensitive to the death of their grandparents, but also of wider family, and of their pets. Though they belong to Generation Z, they have the same childish worries as the previous generations. They are sad when there are conflicts in the family, when somebody is ill, sent to hospital, or when somebody leaves home. They are very frustrated about injustices or unfulfilled promises. They suffer when they feel sick. The most common irritating situation is to be in conflict with somebody in the classroom. A family-type school has similar means of opening the children’s hearts toward sharing as the family has. During the morning opening circle—maybe sitting on the carpet—the children talk about their weekends, their holidays, and they often mention ultimate issues quite naturally. They share their opinions and emotions about death, heaven, hell, God, angels, demons, other religions, gods, fortune-telling, the devil, nightmares, friendship, forgiveness, illness and healing, faith in Jesus, prayer, and punishment. A very interesting discovery was the fact that the most favorite television program of seven-years-old children was the evening news. Ecological worries are especially typical for Generation Z. Here is just one example: The teacher of Religious Education used a  small tree branch to demonstrate the story of Jesus’ entry into Jerusalem before Easter. After the lesson one girl came to the teacher and asked the teacher, ‘How would you feel if somebody cut your arm?’ The surprised teacher did not understand the girl’s comment, ‘Why are you asking?’ The girl responded very seriously, ‘Because that is what you have done to that bush.’ (Fortunately, the teacher’s true answer satisfied the girl’s worry, ‘I found the branch lying on the sidewalk on the way to school…’).



New Challenges in the Religious Education of Generation Z

235

As the issue of good and evil is crucial in the morals and worldview of all humans, in her above-mentioned research Dana Hanesová investigated the opinions of 150 children, 6–12 years old, about these two moral concepts. The children could express their opinions either by drawing or by verbal statements. The youngest children defined good and evil as good or bad behavior of people. The older ones focused more on moral characteristics and on supernatural beings/places and general issues (such as terrorism; wars; drug, nicotine and alcohol addictions; crime). Interestingly enough, the ten-years-old children were ready to express their opinions on bad decisions of politicians. The same kind of research, with similar results, was accomplished by Katarína Šalátová from the Department of Ethical Education17 with another group of 100 children aged 6–10. The biggest group of children (53 percent) think that good is when a person does something good/some good deeds; 32 percent of children described good as some human characteristics; 12 percent of children say supernatural beings/places are good (heaven, angels, God, saints). The smallest group (3 percent) drew non-living objects as the answer to the question about good (heart, sweet, stone, gift, anchor). Talking about evil, 44 percent of children think about bad behavior/deeds; 36 percent think of a bad characteristic of a  person; 11% think about supernatural beings/places (devil, hell, death); and 9% of children describe as bad some non-living objects (stone, bomb, pistol, knife, cigarettes, drugs). Katarína Čižmáriková Šalátová18 investigated factors influencing the sociomoral development of the youngest generation of children and the means of supporting the acquisition of moral characteristics. She developed an efficient program of socio-moral growth of children via an integration of ethical topics with the majority of subjects at primary school. The investigated children had a chance to describe their values and express their opinions on good and evil. In the first phase, the children that Čižmáriková investigated identified as good things/events happening to themselves, for example, “A good thing is that I tidied my toys.” “Good is that I made my bed.” After a several weeks long course on moral values, they commented on good deeds in connection with helping somebody else, for example, “Good was that I washed the dishes.” “I helped my mother. And I promised I would obey her.” In the end of the intervention K. Šalátová, “Rozvíjanie mravných vlastností detí mladšieho školského veku” (Unpublished thesis; Banská Bystrica: PF UMB, 2005), pp. 24–7. 18 K. Šalátová Čižmáriková, “Socio-morálny vývin žiakov1.stupňa ZŠ a možnosti jeho ovplyvňovania” (Unpublished dissertation thesis; Banská Bystrica: PF UMB, 2008); K. Čižmáriková, “Vplyv sociomorálneho programu na klímu triedy,” J. Kaliská (ed.) Dobro a zlo, alebo o morálke 1 – Psychologické a filozofické aspekty morálky v edukácii (Banská Bystrica: PF UMB, 2013), pp. 259–68. 17

236

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

program the children did not speak so much about their own good deeds, but about the good deeds of their schoolmates. The success of this experiment raised the question how to develop such better ethical programs at schools nationwide. They can facilitate Generation Z to become more aware of socio-moral norms and of the ways of their joyful fulfillment and meaning for society. To sum up the results of the above-mentioned research studies: Generation Z deals with similar spiritual and moral issues as the previous generations. Their views of good and evil, of God, of good deeds reflect that these issues are basic human issues, common to all mankind. On the other hand, they live in a  different cultural, social, political and economic context. They express themselves with a different language. The societal expectations and taboos in the era of Generation Z differ from those of the previous generations, especially the oldest living ones. These cross-cultural issues may become a real challenge for parents, grandparents and other people involved in the education of Generation Z, as none of them has been a child born in the twenty-first century. To teach Generation Z is a demanding task which requires excellent teacher preparation built on a balanced combination of theory and practical training.

School Religious Education as a means of helping families with Generation Z children After describing the general and specific features of Generation Z in Slovakia, the last question of our study remains: How can teachers of Religious Education help parents deal with the challenges of Generation Z? Religious Education in Slovakia is a partially optional subject as there is a  compulsory choice to be made by the parents/children between Religious Education and secular Ethical Education. The basic premise of our study is the idea that Religious Education is a special subject sui generis. Its aims, contents and methods are very specific as it is the only subject that addresses the ultimate issues of life. In Slovakia, similarly to the majority of EU countries,19 the legislation on Religious Education allows a “denominational” approach in all kinds of See comparative research of the aims, contents and methodology of Religious Education in the European Union: D. Hanesová, Náboženská výchova v Európskej únii (Banská Bystrica: PF UMB, 2006); D. Hanesová, “Religious Education in Slovakia,” E. Kuyk and P. Schreiner (eds), Religious Education in Europe (Oslo: ICCS & IKO Publ. House, 2007), pp. 173–77; D. Hanesová, “Slovakia: educational goals and methods in religious education in a post-communist country,” H. G. Ziebertz and U. Riegel (eds), How Teachers in Europe Teach Religion. An International Empirical Study in 16 Countries (Münster: LIT 2009), pp. 199–210.

19



New Challenges in the Religious Education of Generation Z

237

schools—state, private and religious schools. It means that Religious Education teachers not only teach children from or about religion/religions but they can also lead them into their own specific Christian faith. In Slovakia, all of the eighteen religious communities or denominations have the right to write their own curriculum, have it approved by the Ministry of Education and implement it in schools. Currently only five churches have been teaching their Religious Education: Roman Catholic, Greek Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran and Reformed church. The aim of Religious Education in all Christian denominations in Slovakia is to help parents in their effort to lead their children towards moral and spiritual maturity and internalized faith. It is similar to the aim of church catechesis. But the content, and especially the teaching methods, have to be adjusted to the specific school context. As is clear from the overview of challenges of Generation Z and their families, the biggest challenge of Religious Education is to provide holistic20 education, developing not only cognitive and spiritual but also emotional, and socio-moral competences of children. Traditional curricula of Religious Education focus more intensively on the ‘vertical’ relationship towards God, on church confessions, doctrines, theological and biblical issues, religionistics, ethics, church history and/or evangelism. According to one research analysis,21 Religious Education could improve in the area of “horizontal” (human) relationships compared with Ethical Education. Often when asked about Biblical-related questions, the children in Religious Education lessons were able to verbalize their answers properly, almost precisely. But their behavior, attitudes, fears and worries showed that there was still a  lot of potential towards re-thinking the practice of Religious Education and transforming it into a subject that would correspond more with the needs and challenges of Generation Z families. What do Christian parents themselves think about the influence of Religious Education upon the life of their Generation Z children? Here are the results of a small survey among parents. The researcher asked the parents: How does your child perceive God? What does prayer mean for your child? How would you describe his/her faith? Of which truths do Christian parents and teachers need to become more efficient communicators? Are the parents and teachers being transformed by the story of God’s love themselves? Can they communicate it Luke 2.52 also mentions holistic development of the baby Jesus: “Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favour with God and man.” 21 D. Hanesová, “Výchova k prosociálnosti: komparácia etickej výchovy a náboženskej výchovy na 1. stupni ZŠ v SR,” Katechetika – historie – teologie IV (Ostrava: OU, 2007), pp. 87–99. 20

238

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

adequately and appropriately to Generation Z? The opinions of parents found in Brádňanská’s survey22 are applicable to any Christian educators who are agents of the child’s formative process. First, the parents think that their child reflects the environment in which his/her personality is being developed. If the child is led to the awareness of the existence of God as someone whom he/she cannot see, but of whom his/ her parents/teachers believe that exists, and to whom they pray and live, in the consciousness of His presence, then they receive the most important impetus to develop their own discovery of God. Even though in early childhood the child alone cannot explicitly express his/her confidence in God the way his/ her parents/teachers do, children learn to know God through them. Their parents/teachers offer them assistance and explanation and especially a personal example through their own actions (attending worship, going to church, silence during prayer, the posture of body during praying, and so on). The child’s activities may seem to be just a  ritual, habit or repetition after their parents, teachers or older siblings. But the child will gradually get into the practice of deeper thinking about their meaning, asking questions, reflecting, meditating, philosophising or theologizing about them. The child will begin to associate the observed behavior with an explanation and observation of adults’ behavior and thus construct and formulate his/her own ideas about God and the life of faith. Secondly, the parents confirmed that the faith of their children was natural, genuine, and honest. If the educational environment in which children grow up does not lack love, hope and real faith, then the foundations for the spiritual development of Generation Z has been laid. Personal faith in the Triune God arises in children regardless of age. Quite a few parents of preschool children and teachers of primary school children have been writing notes about personal statements of their children proving their faith in the Lord Jesus, their surrender to God, their desire to minister in the church, as well as their joyful eschatological expectation. Thirdly, the parents confirmed that prayer was the key element in the spiritual life of their children. The youngest children might consider prayer to be a nice ritual without fully comprehending it. Maybe sometimes they do not want to pray (especially if they have to pray in front of strangers). But gradually they discover God’s power and authority through prayer in several areas of their

N. Brádňanská Ondrášek, “Od generácie Y ku generácii Z: zamerané na generáciu Z,” Od generácie Y ku generácii Z (Banská Bystrica: KTK PF UMB, 2012), pp. 114–41 (135–7).

22



New Challenges in the Religious Education of Generation Z

239

daily life. So it is very wise if prayer is an integral part of Religious Education. Children learn what and how to pray with their open hearts and minds. Generation Z likes to sing praying songs and hymns by which they can praise God and think of God. To give an example, this is what happened in one class of seven-year-old children. The teacher of Religious Education found out that the children loved to sing one rather complex song. When she asked them why they preferred that song they children responded, “because it is about loving God deeply in our heart.” It is important to pay attention to educational and spiritual principles and methods through which Religious Education can become more socio-culturally aware of the needs of Generation Z; for example: — using activities paying attention to building relationships and specifically to teambuilding; — using activities combining the three main layers of art (word, picture, music); — using activities combining the four H’s (head, heart, hand, health); — avoiding too much hierarchy, bureaucracy; — applying activities that include the three F’s (food, fun and function); — celebrating the present moments; — patiently loving and patiently planting new seeds for the future; — allowing access to updated information using adequate visual aids (various translations of Bibles, maps, pictures/photos/simple DVDs/films, books with stories and natural objects) to open the minds of children to start their construction process. The most crucial principle that Religious Education teachers advise parents of Generation Z to use is spending more time in active listening to their children, to their questions, their thoughts, experiences, opinions, to their philosophizing and theologizing; and also watching the process of the child’s answer-seeking. Religious Education itself should offer enough quality space, where not only the teacher but also the pupils can express their feelings and thoughts. Religious Education is effective only if the children feel safe, accepted, loved and allowed to play an active role, openly sharing their feelings and thoughts. Children of Generation Z like to cooperate with the teacher and thus become partners in education. Creating an environment full of trust and acceptance opens the door to Generation Z communicating their feelings, images, concepts, doubts and arguments. Religious Education is naturally the most suitable subject for teachers to ask Generation Z the ultimate questions,

240

Christian Family and Contemporary Society

such as: “Who am I?” “Where am I?” “What went wrong?” “How can it be repaired?” And especially the key question: ‘Who do I want to become?’ Special emphasis of Religious Education should be laid upon an adult’s ability to build a rapport with the individual children. Building a rapport with children is the starting point for developing an authentic, honest relationship with the child (without any hidden agenda). A very good way leading to this is sitting together and sharing in a circle, for example on the carpet, as the first thing in the morning. Religious Education also offers a lot of opportunities for discussions about the children’s lives beyond the classroom, for example during recess or in extra-curricular activities. To become good examples for children, teachers of denominational Religious Education have to be authentic in their own faith. They are expected to keep their own hearts open to God’s love and love for people and to develop in their knowledge of the Scriptures. They should intercede for the children they teach. At the same time they should do everything possible to open children’s minds and hearts for searching after God.

Conclusion The youngest generation of children (Generation Z) has specific features that are associated with the time and region where they were born. Generation Z suffers the pressure of global economic crisis, threats of terrorism and of catastrophes due to global warming. They are especially influenced by the tremendous opportunities of the virtual world, and global village communication means, such as social networks, offered to them via information technologies. But the main ultimate issues remain the same. All human beings have a deep inner device (conscience) helping them to distinguish between good and evil and to sense the challenge of the existence of, and the need to respond to, the Transcendent (in Christianity—the Triune God). So for the parents of Generation Z it might be helpful to have good examples of how to respond to these ultimate needs of each of their children. Teachers of Religious Education should take this subject very seriously, as it is the only way in which the school may help their children to develop socio-moral-spiritual competences. Religious Education should be taught with respect to the truth that is the core of faith, but also culturally aware of the adequate ways of communicating the faith to Generation Z.

Contributors John Anthony McGuckin is the Nielsen Chair of Ancient Church History at Union Theological Seminary, and the Professor of Byzantine Christian Studies at Columbia University, in New York. He is a stavrophore priest of the Romanian Archdiocese of the Two Americas. He holds degrees in theology and history from the Universities of London, Durham, and Southampton. Prof. McGuckin is a Fellow of the British Royal Historical Society, a member of numerous scholarly journal boards and an extensively published author. He currently directs the Sophia Institute, an International Research Centre for Eastern Orthodox culture, and has recently completed a study of the influence of Platonic ideas of the Form of Beauty on the Christian patristic writers. Daniel Alberto Ayuch was born in Santiago del Estero (Argentina) in 1967. He is Professor of New Testament at the Saint John of Damascus Institute of Theology at the University of Balamand (Lebanon). He is Doctor of Theology (Dr. Theol.) from the Faculty of Catholic Theology at the Westphaelian Wilhelm University of Münster. His thesis on Lucan social ethics was published in Münster in 1998. His research work is based on linguistic and narrative text analysis and his fields of interest include the Lucan Diptych, the Synoptic Gospels, and the writings of Early Judaism. He is member of the Editorial Board of Scripta Theologica, the Biblical Federation in Lebanon and the Orthodox Center for the Advancement of Biblical Studies in the USA. He participated in the edition of comments for the Pastoral Bible (Beirut, 2011) and wrote a commentary on Mark for the upcoming Modern Arabic Bible Commentary (Cairo, 2015). He has several articles in peer-reviewed journals in English, Spanish and Arabic. Mato Zovkić was born in 1937 to a Croatian catholic family in Bosnia. In 1968 he was awarded a doctorate in theology by the Catholic Theological Faculty in Zagreb. From 1969 to 1972 he studied Holy Scriptures at Pontifical Biblical Institute in Rome where he obtained his degree S. S. L. Ordained priest of Sarajevo Archdiocese in 1963, from 1972 to 2009 Professor of New Testament exegesis at the Theological Seminary of Vrhbosna in Sarajevo, from 1997 to 2012 member of the Interreligious Council in Bosnia-Herzegovina, from July 2008 to May 2012 nominated by

242 Contributors

Cardinal Vinko Puljic vicar of Sarajevo Archdiocese for relations with other faith communities.    Since 1969 he has been writing theological books, articles and reviews of theological books. So far, he has published 19 books of his own, translated six theological books, about 160 articles and 115 reviews. Most of his books and articles deal with the ecclesiology of Vatican II and of the New Testament. In one of his books, published in 1998, he depicts inter-religious dialogue in Bosnia-Herzegovina from the Catholic point of view. Elena Giannakopoulou was born in Messinia (Greece). She is Assistant Professor of Canon Law and Ecumenical Councils at the Faculty of Theology of the National and Capodistrian University of Athens. She is Doctor (PhD) of Canon Law and Ecumenical Councils. Her dissertation is based on the Holy Canons and records of the proceedings of the Ecumenical Councils of the Orthodox Church, and deals with man’s ultimate stages from the time of physical death until the Lord’s Second Coming. She is a member of the Society for the Law of the Eastern Churches and author of the following: Eschatology according to the Records of proceedings of the Ecumenical Councils and the Holy Canons. The life after death until the Second Coming (Athens, 2004, pp. 1–416, in Greek), Evaluative formulations of St. John Chrysostom on the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council (Athens 2008, pp. 1–148, in Greek), “Die Siebte Ökumenische Synode, die Libri Carolini und Europa”, Θεολογία 79(1) (2008): 99–118 (in German). Her other publications focus on Holy Canons and records of the proceedings of the Ecumenical Councils of the Orthodox Church. Pablo Argárate (1962) was born in Cordoba (Argentina). He is currently Professor and Head of Department at the Institute for Ecumenical Theology, Eastern Orthodoxy and Patristics at Graz University. He studied in Buenos Aires and Cordoba (Argentina) and Tübingen (Germany). He holds doctorates in Theology and in Philosophy. He has taught in Cordoba, Paderborn, Tübingen and Toronto. In 2011 he moved to Austria to take up his current post at the Catholic Faculty of Graz University. He is author of a large number of articles and book in Patristics and Spirituality, and is a polyglot being fluent in Spanish, English, German, French, Italian, and able to communicate in Romanian, Greek, Portuguese and Hebrew. Viorel Sava was born in Grajduri (Iaşi County, Romania) in 1963. He is Professor of Liturgical Theology at the Faculty of Orthodox Theology, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iaşi, and Orthodox priest of the

Contributors

243

Archdiocese of Iaşi. He is Licentiate in Theology with the thesis Saint Apostles in the Orthodox Cult and Iconography and Doctor in Liturgical Theology, with the thesis The Sacrament of Confession in Contemporary Liturgical Rites. His research interests are Liturgical Theology, Liturgical Practice, Pastoral Theology, and Orthodox Spirituality, research areas in which he has published seven books and more than ninety studies, chapters, translations, articles, and reviews in Romania and abroad, coordinated nine volumes and participated at many national and international conferences and symposiums. Viorel Sava is member of several theological committees and editorial boards of theological Romanian journals and PhD adviser at the Faculty of Orthodox Theology, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iaşi. His academic excellence and pastoral experience, during more than two decades, have been acknowledged by numerous awards and distinctions he has received over the years. José Ramon Villar (1958) is a Professor of Systematic Theology at the School of Theology of the University of Navarra (Pamplona, Spain). He has served as Dean of the School and is currently the Director of the Department of Systematic Theology. He teaches the subjects of Ecclesiology, Missiology and Ecumenical Theology. He also holds the Chair of Ecumenism of the School of Theology and is a member of the Societas Oecumenica Europea. He was a delegate of the Bishops’ Conference of Spain to the Third European Ecumenical Assembly (Sibiu, 2007). He is currently a consultant of the Episcopal Commission for Ecumenism and the Episcopal Commission for the Doctrine of the Faith, of the Bishops’ Conference of Spain. He is the author of several books and over a hundred articles on ecclesiological and ecumenical themes. Przemyslaw Kantyka was born in Kielce (Poland) in 1968. He is Professor of Ecumenical and Protestant Theology, the director of the Ecumenical Institute at the John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin and a Roman Catholic priest of the Diocese of Kielce. He is Doctor Habilitatus in Ecumenical Theology from the John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin. He is the author of books and nearly 100 articles in dogmatic and ecumenical theology, especially on Anglicanism, Methodism, ecumenical dialogues and other ecumenical topics. Member of many Polish and international learned societies. President of the Polish Region of the International Ecumenical Fellowship. Nicu Dumitraşcu (1961) is currently professor of the Faculty of Orthodox Theology “Episcop Dr. Vasile Coman,” University of Oradea, Romania. He has also given lectures in Croatia, Finland, Belgium and Lebanon, and

244 Contributors

he is involved in different international ecumenical partnerships. He is author of many publications both in Romania and abroad in the field of Patristics, Missiology and Ecumenism. The most recent articles are: A New Trinitarian Vision: Orthodox Ecclesiology Embodied within a Secularized Society, Theology Today, 70(4) (2014) 445–54; The Lord’s Prayer in Eastern Spirituality, Dialog: A Journal of Theology, 52(4) (2013): 353–60; Eusebiu de Cesarea: La actitud versátil de un brillante historiador en el marco de las controversias arrianas, Studia Monastica, 55(1) (2013): 7–25; Mercy, Love and Salvation in Orthodox Spirituality, Acta Theologica, 32(2) (2012): 72–83; His forthcoming book (2015) is: The Ecumenical Legacy of the Cappadocians (collected Essays). Piotr Kopiec was born in Bielsko-Biała (Poland) in 1975. He is Lecturer of Ecumenical Theology in the Ecumenical Institute and Lecturer of Sociology in the Instutute of Family Studies at the John Paul II Catholic University in Lublin. He is Doctor (PhD) in Ecumenical Theology and Doctor (PhD) in Sociology. He is Vice-President of Polish Region of International Ecumenical Fellowship. He is secretary of the Editorial Board of Annals of Ecumenical Theology. He participated also in the scholarship program of the European College of Polish and Ukrainian Universities.    He is the author of the book Kościół dla świata. Wiarygodność Kościoła w teologicznej interpretacji Dietricha Bonhoeffera (Church for the world. The Credibility of Church in Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Theological Interpretation), and nearly 30 articles devoted especially to Ecumenical and Protestant Theology, Sociology of Family and Postmodernism. Bassam Nassif is the Assistant Professor of Pastoral Theology and Marriage Counseling at the St. John of Damascus Institute of Theology, University of Balamand, Lebanon. He received his Doctorate in Ministry from Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and devoted his research and dissertation on Family and Pastoral Care in the context of Lebanese society. He also earned a Master in Pastoral Care from Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology in Boston, where his thesis presented Theodore Abu Qurrah’s pastoral defence of Orthodoxy. As a pastor, Fr. Nassif is concerned with integrating the pastoral theology of the Orthodox Church with the research and experience of the human sciences, leading to the formation of a therapeutic pastoral care approach. His aim is to deal with modern challenges facing the Church in a pluralistic and secularized world. Building on scientific research and on the rich tradition of the Church, he endeavours to offer a contemporary approach to pastoral care leading to the righteousness of modern man.

Contributors

245

Michel Cozic was born in Angers (France) in 1940; he is married with three children. Now retired, he was assistant teacher of Latin in the Poitiers University(France). He is “Professeur agrégé de Lettres Classiques” (French, Greek and Latin languages), and Doctor d’Etat with the following thesis and publications: “Les ennuis conjugaux d’une matrone romaine au Vème siècle, in the Liber ad Gregoriam from Arnobius Junior.”    He is a member of the International Association of Patristic Studies (IAPS) and author of several publications on the History of the Christianism (see for example the bulletin 2011 of IAPS). Since 2003 he has been one of the three founders of the international symposia in La Rochelle (France) about: “Les Pères de l’Eglise et les femmes,” “les Pères de l’Eglise et la voix des pauvres,” “les Pères de l’Eglise et les ministères,” “les Pères de l’Eglise et les dissidents,” “les Pères de l’Eglise et la chair,” edited in the French language.    He is also a member of the recent Ecumenical Patristic Society (EPS) in Athens. Thomas Knieps-Port le Roi, born in 1961, received his PhD in 1994 from the University of Bonn, Germany. He has been Senior Researcher at the International Academy for Marital Spirituality (INTAMS) in Brussels, Belgium, from 1995–2005. Since 2005 he has been an Associate Professor and holder of the INTAMS Chair for the Study of Marriage & Spirituality at the Faculty of Theology and Religious Studies of the Catholic University Leuven in Belgium. He teaches courses in the fields of sexual, conjugal and family ethics and lay spirituality and is also the editor of the INTAMS review, Journal for the Study of Marriage and Spirituality. Among his recent book publications are Companion to Marital Spirituality, co-edited with M. Sandor (Leuven: Peeters, 2008) and The Household of God and Local Households. Revisiting the Domestic Church, co-edited with G. Mannion and P. De Mey (Leuven: Peeters, 2013). Gunnar af Hällström was born 13 May 1950 in Turku, Finland. He studied theology for his doctorate in Helsinki, Uppsala, Manchester and Rome. For a few years he was the director of the Finnish Archeological Institute in Athens, Greece. For twelve years he held the chair of dogmatic and patristic theology in Joensuu, eastern Finland, in the Department for Orthodox theology at the University of Joensuu. For five years now he has been an ordinary professor at Åbo Akademi University in Turku, Finland. His dissertation and numerous articles deal with Origen of Alexandria. Marian Vîlciu, was born in Radovanu (Romania) in 1969, and is Associate Professor on the Practical Theology (Liturgy and Pastoral) at the Orthodox Theology and Educational Sciences Faculty. He is a doctor on Theology,

246 Contributors

specializing in Liturgy, Pastoral and Sacred Art; his bachelor degree was on Orthodox Theology in the Faculty of Theology from Bucharest University. The final paper on the PhD program was: The Holy Sacrament of Ordination on the actual Christian rites. María Ágústsdóttir was born in Egilsstaðir, Iceland, in 1968. Since 2009 she has been PhD candidate in Systematic Theology at the University of Iceland, Reykjavík, Iceland. Her thesis has the working title: “Ecumenics in a local perspective – A qualitative research among Christian leaders active in ecumenical work in Iceland”. She graduated with distinction as Canditatus Theologiae from the same institute in 1992 in the field of ethics, with a final paper about the responsibility of the Church for children in modern Icelandic society. In 1994 she graduated from the School of Social Sciences at the University of Iceland with a diploma in Pedagogics and Education and obtained a Certification to teach at college level. She is a member of the Editorial Board of the Church Magazine, published by the Pastoral Association, and a member of the Board for the Theological Institute of the University of Iceland. She has written many articles and book chapters, mostly in Icelandic, on various church and theological matters.    Ágústsdóttir was ordained as a minister in the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Iceland (ELCI) in 1993, working at first with families and children in the Lutheran Cathedral of Reykjavík (1992–6), and then serving as a hospital chaplain and a substitute minister in different parishes. Since 2001 she has been serving in the Deanery of Reykjavík West at its offices in Hallgrímskirkja. She has spent some periods working at the Bishop of Iceland´s office in Reykjavík as a project leader in the planning of confirmation classes and adult education and also serving as an ecumenical officer. María Ágústsdóttir has been involved in the (Women’s) World Day of Prayer for 20 years and has been the Chair of the National Interchurch Committee since 2002. She is married to Rev. Bjarni Þór Bjarnason and has five children. Margriet Gosker (1945) was ordained as a minister in October 1972. She has been an ordained minister for nearly 40 years now. She has the privilege of having served seven Reformed Communities in the Netherlands. She is one of the first female ordained ministers in her church, the Gereformeerde Kerken in Nederland (GKN). Since the merger with two other Dutch mainstream Protestant Churches her church has been part of the Protestant Church in the Netherlands (PCN). She is an ecumenical theologian. She has been involved in the Ecumenical Board of GKN and PCN, in the Faith and Order Section of the Council of Churches in the Netherlands, in the work of Faith and Order (WCC), in the birth of WCRC after the WARC-REC merger and in the Doctrinal Talks of CPCE. Her special

Contributors

247

topics are: ministry, ordination and episkope in the ecumenical dialogues, women’s ordination and gender issues. Ștefan Florea (1968) is Associate Professor of Systematic Theology at the Faculty of Orthodox Theology, Valahia University of Târgoviste and Orthodox priest of the Archdiocese of Târgoviste. He is a Doctor of Theology from the University “Lucian Blaga” of Sibiu, and also Doctor of Law from the Valahia University.    He is author of Spirituality and Christian moral perfection in the writings of St. Gregory of Nyssa (Bucharest, 2004); Between philosophy and mystique (Bucharest, 2005); The Theological Development of Holy Tradition (Bucharest, 2007); Ethical Principles for a Civilisation of Love (Bucharest, 2009); and many other publications devoted especially to Christian Ethics, Bioethics, Dogmatics and Ecclesiastical History. Dana Hanesová was born in Bratislava (Slovakia) in 1961. At first she studied Information and Librarian Science and English language at the Faculty of Arts, Comenius University in Bratislava, Slovakia (M.A. in 1983). In 1982 she married an evangelical pastor Pavel Hanes. After the Velvet Revolution she was asked to start teaching at a village primary school. In 1993 both Pavel and Dana were called to move to Banska Bystrica to start teaching at the newly formed Department of Evangelical Theology and Mission (DETM) at the University of Matej Bel. Dana’s second Master’s degree (in Pedagogy and Teaching English Language) in 1995 was followed by her PhD in 2003 in the Art of Teaching Languages and in 2004 a minor Doctorate in Religious Education (PaedDr.). After a few years of comparative research in the area of Religious Education in the European Union and defending her research thesis in 2005 she became an associate professor responsible for the teaching of Religious Education teachers at the University of Matej Bel. Since 2009, in parallel with her academic work, she has been practically involved in teaching and managing a Christian primary school in Banska Bystrica. Dana and Pavel have two children Dasa and Timotej (26 and 24) who both studied theology in Banska Bystrica.    Dana has written almost 200 studies on the topics of her research interest. Most of them deal with comparative approaches to religious education and ethical education but also primary education, language education, teacher education, and education of the Roma minority. She is the author of the books, Religious Education in Schools, Religious Education in the European Union, Educational Programmes for Roma Minority, English for the Specific Purposes of Faculties of Education.

Bibliography Introduction Chryssavgis, J. Love, Sexuality and the Sacrament of Marriage. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Press. 1996. Dedon, T. and Trostyanskiy, S. (eds). Love, Marriage and Family in the Eastern Orthodox Tradition. New York: Theotokos Press (The Sophia Institute, New York). 2013. Evdokimov, P. The Sacrament of Love. New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press. 1985. Meyendorff, J. Marriage An Orthodox Perspective. New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press. 1975. St. Vladimir’s Seminary Quarterly, vol. 8. 1. 1964 is comprised of papers from a symposium dedicated to the Orthodox approach to marriage. Raes, A. Le Mariage dans les Églises d’Orient. Chevetogne: Monastery of the Holy Cross. 1958. Ritzer, K. Le Mariage dans les Églises Chrétiennes du Ier au XIIière siecles. Paris: Beauchesne. 1970.

Chapter 1 Bovon, F. L’Évangile selon Saint Luc. Commentaire du Nouveau Testament, III. 4 vols. Genève: Labor et Fides. 2009. Fitzmyer, J. El Evangelio según Lucas. 4 vols. Madrid: Cristiandad. 1987. Garcia Martinez, F. (trans.). The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated. The Qumran Texts in English. Leiden: Brill. 1996. Gnilka, J. Das Matthäusevangelium. Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament I. 2 vols. Reprint. Freiburg: Herder, Sonderausgabe. 1988. —El evangelio según san Marcos. Biblioteca de Estudios Bíblicos 55–6. 2 vols. Salamanca: Ediciones Sígueme. 2001. Hinson, G. The Triumphant Church. Macon: Mercer University Press. 1995. Kvam, K. E., Schearing, L. S., and Ziegler, V. H. Eve and Adam: Jewish, Christian, and Muslim readings on Genesis and Gender. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1999. Langner, C. Evangelio de Lucas. Hechos de los Apóstoles. Biblioteca Bíblica Básica 16. Estella: Verbo Divino, 2008.

250 Bibliography Löning, K. Das Geschichtswerk des Lukas. Urban Taschenbücher 455–6. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1997. Luz, U. Matthew 8–20. “A Commentary,” J. E. Crouch (trans). Hermeneia. 3 vols. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. 2001. Tarazi, P. N. The New Testament: An Introduction. 4 vols. New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press. 2001. —The Old Testament: An Introduction. 3 vols. New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, rev. edn. 2003. Theißen, G. Erlösungsbilder. Gütersloh: Kaiser, Gütersloher Verlag. 2002. Tomás de Aquino Catena Aurea Exposición de los cuatro Evangelios. 4 vols. Buenos Aires: Cursos de Cultura Católica. 1946. Viviano, B. “Evangelio según Mateo,” in R. Brown, J. Fitzmyer, and R. Murphy (eds), Nuevo Comentario Bíblico San Jerónimo, J. Pérez Escobar (trans). 2 vols. Estella: Verbo Divino. 2004, pp 66–132. Weigandt, P. “οἶκος’ and ‘οἰκία,” in H. Balz and G. Schneider (eds), Diccionario Exegético del Nuevo Testamento, C. Ruiz-Garrido (trans.). 2 vols. Salamanca: Sígueme, 2nd edn. 1998.

Chapter 2 Arbiol, C. G. ‘La evoluciόn del cuerpo en la tradiciόn paulina y sus consecuencias sociales y eclesiales’, Estudios Biblicos 68 (2010): 1, 73–105. Brown, R. E. An Introduction to the New Testament. Doubleday: New York. 1996. Čarnić, E. Sv. Apostola Pavla Poslanica Efescima. Beograd 1969. Carrier, R. “On Musonius Rufus: A Brief Essay” (1999), www.infidels.org/library/ modern/richard_carrier/musonius.html (accessed 20 September 2011) Collins, R. F. First Corinthians. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press. 1999. —Sexual Ethics and the New Testament. Behavior and Belief. New York: The Crossroad Publishing Company. 2000. Fitzgerald, J. T. “Theodore of Mopsuestia on Paul’s Letter to Philemon,” in D. F. Tolmie, Philemon in Perspective, 333–63. Fitzmyer, J. A. The Acts of the Apostles. New York: Doubleday. 1998. —First Corinthians. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. 2008. Gaventa, B. R. ‘‘‘To Preach the Gospel’: Romans 1,15 and the Purpose of Romans,” in UdoSchnelle (ed.) The Letter to the Romans, Peeters. Leuven. 2009, 179–95. Getty, M. A. 1 Corinthians, The Collegeville Bible Commentary. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press. 1992, pp. 1100–33. Giuliano, L. “‘Per un momento’ o ‘per sempre’. La funzione retorica del chiasmo in Fm 15.” Rivista Biblica LVIII (2010): 3, 355–69. Gnilka, J. Der Philemonbrief. Freiburg: Herder. 1982.

Bibliography

251

Hägerland, T. “Rituals of (Ex)communication and Identity: 1 Cor 5 and 4Q266 11. 4Q270 7,” in B. Homberg and M. Winninge (eds), Identity Formation in the New Testament. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 2008, 43–60. Harrill, J. A. “Paul and Slavery,” in J. P. Sampley, Paul in the Greco-Roman World. 575–607. Hock, R. F. “Paul and Greco-Roman Education,” in J. P. Sampley, Paul in the GrecoRoman World. 198–227. Hoehner, H. W. Ephesians. An Exegetical Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. 2002. Hubbard, M. V. Christianity in the Greco-Roman World: A Narrative Introduction. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers. 2010. Jeffers, J. S. “Jewish and Christian Families in First-Century Rome,” in K. P. Donfried and P. Richardson (eds), Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome. Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 1998, 128–50. Johnson, E. “Ephesians,” in The Women’s Bible Commentary. Louisville, KT: Westminster John Knox Press. 1992, 338–42. Kim, Y. S. Christ’s Body in Corinth. The Politics of a Metaphor. Minneapolis: Fortress Press. 2004. Laub, Fr. Die Begegnung des frühen Christentums mit der antiken Sklaverei. Stuttgart: Verlag Katholisches Bibelwerk. 1982. MacDonald, M. Y. “Ephesians,” in The International Bible Commentary. A Catholic and Ecumenical Commentary for the Twenty-First Century. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press. 1998, 1670–86. Meeks, W. A. The First Urban Christians. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. 1983. Metzger, B. M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. Second Edition. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. 2001. Moxnes, H. “Body, Gender and Social Space: Dilemmas in Constructing Early Christian Identities,” in B. Holmberg and M. Winninge (eds), Identity Formation in the New Testament. 163–81. Murphy-O’Connor, J. “Preaching is the expression of Paul’s being as Christian; for this, then, he deserves no,” in Fr. Mussner, Der Galaterbrief. Freiburg: Herder. 1988. Osiek, C. and Balch, D. L. Families in the New Testament World. Households and House Churches. Louisville, KT: Westminster John Knox Press. 1997. Popović, O. J. TumačenjePoslanicesvetogapostolaPavla. Beograd 1983 (in Cyrillic script). Roitto, R. “Act as Christ-Believer, as a Household Member or as Both? – A Cognitive Perspective on the Relationship between the Social Identity in Christ and Household Identities in Pauline and Deutero-Pauline Texts,” in B. Holmberg and M. Winninge (eds), Identity Formation in the New Testament. Tübingen: MohrSiebeck. 2008, 141–61. Schrage, W. Der Erste Brief an die Korinther. 2. Teilband 1 Kor 6,12-11,16. Düsseldorf: Benziger Verlag. 1995.

252 Bibliography Schwindt, R. Das Weltbild des Epheserbriefes. Eine religions-geschichtlich-exegetische Studie. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 2002. Seneca, L. A. Moral Essays III, Harvard University Press 1975. ‘Special credit’ in ‘The New Jerome Biblical Commentary,” London: Geoffrey Chapman. 1992, 49. Stuhlmueller, C. (ed.), The Collegeville Pastoral Dictionary of Biblical Theology. Collegeville, MN:Theology, The Liturgical Press. 1996. Tamez, E. Galatians, The International Bible Commentary. A Catholic and Ecumenical Commentary for the Twenty-First Century, William R. Farmer (ed.). Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press. 1998, 1654–69. Thielman, Fr. Ephesians. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic. 2010. Thiselton, A. C. ‘The First Epistle to the Corinthians’, Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 2000. Tolmie, D. F. “Tendencies in the Research on the Letter to Philemon since 1980,” in D. F. Tolmie (ed.), Philemon in Perspective. Interpreting a Pauline Letter. Berlin: W. de Gruyter. 2010, 1–27. Ward, R. B. “Musonius and Paul on Marriage,” NTS 36 (1990): 281–9. Wessels, G. Fr. “The Letter to Philemon in the Context of Slavery in Early Christianity,” in F. Tolmie (ed.), Philemon in Perspective. Interpreting a Pauline Letter. Berlin: W. de Gruyter. 2010, 148–9. Wilson, R. McL. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Colossians and Philemon. London: T&T Clark International. 2005. Yarbrough, O. L. “Paul, marriage and divorce,” in J. P. Sampley, Paul in the GrecoRoman World, Harrisburg: Trinity Press International. 2003.

Chapter 3 Alexandra, C. “Abortions in Greece.” Greek American Review, March 2005, 24–8. Christinakis, P. “Family Law and equality of the two sexes” (lecture notes). I. Orthodox religious marriage (Introduction, Engagement, Marriage, Divorce), Athens 2003. Constantelos, J. D. “Practise of the Sacrament of matrimony according to the orthodox tradition,” The Jurist 31(4), (1971): 614–28. —Marriage, Sexuality and Celibacy: A Greek Orthodox Perspective. Light and Life Pub. Co. 1975. Evdokimov P.-G. and Anthony, P. The Sacrament of Love: The Nuptial Mystery in the Light of the Orthodox Tradition. New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press. 1985, 1995, 2001. Giagous, T. “Προσεγγίσεις στὴν κανονικὴ διδασκαλία περὶ γάμου” (“Approaches to Canonical Tradition on Marriage”), in T. Giagou, Κανόνεςκαὶ Λατρεία (Canons and Worship), Thessaloniki: G. Dedousi. 2001 (Mygdonia 2006), 289–328.

Bibliography

253

Giannakopoulou, E. “Concubinage as a type of cohabitation. Historical-Canonical and comparative view,” Ecclesiastikos Pharos 79 (2008): 117–97 (in Greek). Konidaris I. “Die Beziehungen zwischen Kirche und Staat im heutigen Griechenland,” Österreichisches Archiv für Kirchenrecht 40 (1991): 131–44. —The Conflict between Legitimacy and Normativity and the Substantiation of their Congruence. Athens: Ant. Sakkoulas. 1994 (in Greek). —“Staat und Kirche in Griechenland,” in G. Robbers (ed.), Staat und Kirche in der Europäischen Union. Baden-Baden: Nomos. 1995, 79–98. —The Hellenic Republic and the Prevailing Religion. Brigham Young University Law Review. 1998, 815–52. Kounougeri-Manoledaki, E. Family Law I: Introduction, Betrothal, Contract of Marriage, Relationship between the Spouses, Divorce. Athens and Thessaloniki: Sakkoulas. 2008 (in Greek). Meyendorff, J. Marriage: An Orthodox Perspective. New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press. 1984 (3rd rev. edn). Milas, N. The Ecclesiastical Law of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Athens. 1906 (in Greek). Papastathis, Ch. “Le régime constitutionnel des cultes en Grèce,” The Constitutional Status of Churches in the European Union Countries, Paris-Milano [European Consortium for Church- State Research]. 1995, 153–69. Papathomas, G. “Ανοικτός Εκκλησιαστικός Κοινοτισμός: Ανόμοιοι-μεικτοί γάμοι και Μεταστροφή ενηλίκων,” in IDEM, Κανονικά άμορφα (Δοκίμια κανονικής οικονομίας), Κατερίνη: εκδ. Επεκταση. 2006, 231–50. Salakos N. Bakalianou K., Gregoriou O., Iavazzo C., Paltoglou G., and Creatsas G. “Abortion rates and the role of family planning: a presentation of the Greek reality,” Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 35(4). 2008, 279–83. Spyropoulos, Ph. Die Beziehungen zwischen Staat und Kirche in Griechenland unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der orthodoxen Kirche. Athens. 1981. Stavropoulos, Αl. “Family and family life education between tradition and modernisation in contemporary Greece,” http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/ stavropoulos_familylife.html Troianos, Sp. “Die Beziehungen zwischen Staat und Kirche in Griechenland,” Orthodoxes Forum 6. 1992, 221–31. Viscuso P. “An Orthodox Perspective on Marriage: Demetrios J. Constantelos,” in G. P. Liacopulos, Church and Society: Orthodox Christian Perspectives, Past Experiences, and Modern Challenges. Boston, MA: Somerset Hall Press. 2007, 303–26. Zhishman J. Das Eherecht der orientalischen Kirche (Family Law of the Eastern Orthodox Church), Wien: W. Braumüller 1864 (translated in Greek by M. Apostolopoulos), vols I–II, in Athens 1912–13 (recently reprinted by Publ. To Nomiko Bibliopoleio 2010).

254 Bibliography

Chapter 4 Sources Gregory of Nazianzus Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, series II, volume 7. C. G. Browne and J. E. Swallow (trans.). Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. 1995 (First impression 1894). —“Discours” 6–12. Calver-Sebasti (ed.), SC 406 (Paris 1995). —“Select orations,” Martha Vinson (trans.). Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press. 2003.

Studies Beagon, P. M. “The Cappadocian Fathers, Women and Ecclesiastical Politics,” in Vigiliae christianae. 49. 1995, 2. 165ff. Børtnes, J. and Hägg, T. (eds). Gregory of Nazianzus. Images and Reflections. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press. University of Copenhagen, 2006. Burrus, V. “Life after Death: The Martyrdom of Gorgonia and the Birth of Female Hagiography,” in J. Børtnes and T. Hägg (eds), Gregory of Nazianzus. Images and Reflections. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press. University of Copenhagen. 2006, 153–70 Cândido, R. A mulher no pensamento de Gregório Nazianzeno. Entre teologia, literatura e pastoral. Rome: Pont. Univ. Lateranensis, Inst. Patr. Augustinianum. 2005. Cummings, J. T. “A Critical Edition of the Carmen De Vita Sua of St Gregory Nazianzen”. Diss. Princeton University, 1966 Daley, B. Gregory of Nazianzus. London nd New York: Routledge. 2006. Gain, B. L’Église de Cappadoce au IVe siècle, d’après la correspondance de Basile de Césarée. (OCA 225). Rome: Pontificio Istituto Orientale. 1985. Hägg, T. “Playing with Expectations: Gregory’s Funeral Orations on his Brother, Sister and Father,” in J. Børtnes and T. Hägg (eds), Gregory of Nazianzus. Images and Reflections. Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum Press. University of Copenhagen. 2006, 133–51 McGuckin, J. A., St. Gregory of Nazianzus. An Intellectual Biography. New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press. 2001. Sheather, M. “The Eulogies on Macrina and Gorgonia: or, What Difference did Christianity Make?,” Pacifica 8. 1995, 1. 22–39 White, C. Gregory of Nazianzus: Autobiographical Poems. (Cambridge Medieval Classics, vol. 6). Cambridge. 1996

Bibliography

255

Chapter 5 Axinia, V. “Dispoziţii canonice ale Sfântului Vasile cel Mare privind femeia creştină” [EN: “Canonical Instructions by St. Basil the Great Regarding Christian Women”] in E. Popescu and A. Marinescu (eds), Sfântul Vasile cel Mare. Închinare la 1630 de ani [St. Basil the Great. Tribute after 1630 Years], vol. 1, Col. Studia Basiliana, 1. Bucharest: Basilica Publishing House. 2009. Băjău, C. I., Patrologie [Patrology], vol. 2. Craiova: Universitaria Publishing House. 2000. Ciucur, M. “Problema căsătoriilor mixte în lumina documentelor oficiale şi propunerile comisiilor interconfesionale în ultimul deceniu” [“The issue of mixed marriages in light of the official documents and proposals by interdenominational committees in the last decade”]. Mitropolia Moldovei şi Sucevei (1975): 1–2. Coman, I. G. “Personalitatea Sfântului Vasile cel Mare. Profil istoric şi spiritual” [“The Figure of St. Basil the Great. A Historical and Spiritual profile”], in E. Popescu and A. Marinescu (eds), Sfântul Vasile cel Mare. Închinare la 1630 de ani [St. Basil the Great. Tribute after 1630 Years], vol. 2. Col. Studia Basiliana, 1. Bucharest: Basilica Publishing House. 2009. Daniel, Patriarch of the Romanian Orthodox Church, “Cuvânt înainte. Sinaxarul sfinţilor capadocieni” [“Foreword. The Synaxarion of Cappadocian Saints”]. Bucharest: Cuvântul Vieţii Publishing House. 2009. —“Cuvânt înainte,” Sfântul Vasile cel Mare. Închinare la 1630 de ani [“Foreword,” St. Basil the Great. A Tribute after 1630 Years], E. Popescu and A. Marinescu (eds), vol. 2. Col. Studia Basiliana, 1. Bucharest: Basilica Publishing House. 2009.

Chapter 6 Catechism of The Catholic Church. 1997. Conner, P. M. Married in Friendship: Familiaris consortio – Digest and Commentary: Friendship – Key to Marital Spirituality. London: Sheed and Ward. 1987. Galindo, Á. (coord.), Hacia una teología de la familia. Salamanca: Universidad Pontificia. 2009. Hahn, S. First Comes Love: Finding your Family in the Church and the Trinity. New York: Doubleday. 2002. Holy See, ‘Charter of The Rights of The Family’ (22–X–1983). Lawler, M. G. and W. P. Roberts (eds). Christian Marriage and Family. Contemporary theological and pastoral perspectives. Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press. 1996. Pope John Paul II, Exhort. apost. Familiaris consortio (22–XI–1981). —“Letter to Families,” (2–II–1994). —Encyclical “Evangelium vitae” (25–III–1995).

256 Bibliography Sarmiento, A. Teología del matrimonio y de la familia: contenido y método. Pamplona: Universidad de Navarra. 2008. Wrenn, M. J. (ed). Pope John Paul II and the Family. Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press. 1983.

Chapter 7 1917 Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law. English translation, with extensive scholarly apparatus. San Francisco: Ignatius Press. 2001. Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd edn. Revised with the with the official Latin text promulgated by Pope John Paul II. Vatican: Liberia Editrice Vaticana. 1997. Code of Canon Law promulgated by Pope John Paul II. London: Collins. 1983. Conferenza Episcopale Italiana. Il Sinodo delle Chiese Valdesi e Metodiste, I matrimoni tra cattolici e valdesi o metodisti in Italia. Documenti comuni della conferenza episcopale italiana e della chiesa evangelica valdese. Torino: Elledici Claudiana. 2001. “Decree on Ecumenism,” in W. M. Abbott (ed.), The Documents of Vatican II: In a new and Definitive Translation, with Commentaries and Notes by Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox Authorities. New York: Crossroad Press. 1989. “Małżeństwo chrześcijańskie osób o różnej przynależności wyznaniowej. Deklaracja Kościołów w Polsce na początku Trzeciego Tysiąclecia.” Projekt dokumentu z 10 maja 2011 r., http://www.ekumenia.pl/index.php?D=111 “Pontificium Consilium ad Christianorum Unitatem Fovendam, Directory for the application of principles and norms on ecumenism,” AAS 85. 1993, 1039–119. Pope Leo XIII. Encyclical on the Liberty of the Church “Quod Multum,” http:// www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/ hf_l-xiii_enc_22081886_quod- multum_en.html “The Council of Laodicea in Phyrgia 364 A.D,” online see: http://reluctant-messenger. com/council-of-laodicea.htm

Chapter 8 Bria, I. Ortodoxia în Europa. Locul spiritualitățiiromâne (Orthodoxy in Europe. The Place of the Romanian Spirituality). Iași: Mitropolia Moldovei și Bucovinei Publishing House. 1995. Chrysostom, St. John ‘Despre căsătoria a doua a văduvelor’ (Concerning the second marriage of the widows) translated from Greek (P.G., XLVIII, col. 609–620) into Romanian by D. Fecioru. Bucharest: Institutul Biblic şi de Misiune al Bisericii Ortodoxe Române Publishing House. 2007.

Bibliography

257

—“Homilies on Ephesians, XX,” in P. Schaff (ed.) The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol.13, [1867]. Reprint Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 1994. —“Homilies on Thessalonians, V,” in P. Schaff (ed.), The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol.13, [1867]. Reprint Grand Rapids: W. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 1994. —“Despre căsătoria a doua a văduvelor” (“Concerning the second marriage of the widows”) translated from Greek (P.G., XLVIII, col. 609–620) into Romanian by D. Fecioru. Bucharest: Institutul Biblic şi de Misiune al Bisericii Ortodoxe Române Publishing House. 2007. Faros, F. and Kofinas, S. Căsnicia. Dificultăţi şi soluţii (Marriage. Difficulties and Solutions), translated from Greek into Romanian by Şerban Tica. Bucharest: Sofia Publishing House. 2012. Ford, D. C. Bărbatul şi femeia în viziunea Sfântului Ioan Gură de Aur (Man and woman in the Vision of St. John the Golden Mouth). Bucharest: Sofia Publishing House. 2004. Ford, D. and Ford, M. Căsătoria – cale spre sfințenie (Marriage – Path to the Holiness. Lives of Married Saints). Bucharest: Sofia Publishing House. 2007. Gagauz, O. “Some reflections about us and migration,” Teaching Pro 5–6(45–6), December 2007. Kaleda, G. Biserica din casă (The Church within the House). Bucharest: Sofia & Cartea Românească Publishing House. 2006. Mack, J. Guide to Acquire Harmony in Orthodox Families, translated into Romanian by D. Rogoti. Bucharest: Sophia Publishing House. 2007. Mărculeț, Ș. “Mulți români au devenit ortodocși practicanți în Apus” (“Many Romanians have become Orthodox Practitioners in the West”), interview with Metropolitan Seraphim, Ziarul Lumina, 17 June 2010. Mettalinos, G. D. Parohia. Hristos în mijlocul nostru (Parish. Christ in our Midst). Sibiu: Deisis Publishing House. 2004. Simonopetritul, E. “Cea mai frumoasă cuvântare despre taina nunţii” (“The most beautiful oration on the wedding sacrament, IV”) Familia Ortodoxă, October 10(33) (2011). Teşu, I. C. “Familia contemporană între ideal şi criză” (“Family between Ideal and Crisis”), in V. Sava and I. Melniciuc-Puică (eds), Familia în societatea contemporană (Family in Contemporary Society). Iaşi, Romania: Doxologia Publishing House. 2011.

Chapter 9 Bailey, D. S. The Man-woman Relation in Christian Thought. London. 1959. Hotz, R. Sakramente im Wechselspiel zwischen Ost und West. Gütersloh. 1979. Lähteenmäki, O. Sexus und Ehe bei Luther. Turku. 1955.

258 Bibliography Luther, M. Babylonian Captivity of the Church. Philadelphia. 1953 Majdański, K. Wspólnota życia i miłości. Zarys teologii małżeństwa i rodziny. PoznańWarszawa. 1979 Napiórkowski, S. C. “Solus Christus. Zbawcze pośrednictwo według ‘Księgi Zgody’,’’ RW KUL. Lublin. 1999, 34. Plass, E. “What Luther Says. A Practical In-Home Anthology for the Active Christian,” CPH. 1959 Röhm, E. and Thierfelder, J. ‘Kirche-Staat-Politik. Zum Öffentlichkeitsauftrag der Kirche’, Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag. 1979.

Chapter 10 Central Intelligence Agency. “The World Factbook – Lebanon, June 2012.” https://www. cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/le.html (accessed 9 December 2012). Chrysostom, St. John. On Marriage and Family Life. New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press. 1986. Constantelos, D. “Marriage in the Greek Orthodox Church,” Journal of Ecumenical Studies 22(1). Winter 1985, 21–7. Doumani, B. Family History in the Middle East: Household, Property, and Gender. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. 2003. Evdokimov, P. The Sacrament of Love: The Nuptial Mystery in the Light of the Orthodox Tradition. New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press. 1985. Joanides, C. “A Systematic Conceptualization of Intermarriages in the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America,” in A. C. Vrame (ed.), The Orthodox Parish in America: Faithfulness to the Past and Responsibility for the Future. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Press. 200, 191–208. Kabba, E. (ed.). Mixed Marriages: Theological Basis, Challenges, and Pastoral Horizons. Beirut: Publications of La Sagesse University. 2012. [Arabic.] Meyendorff, J. Marriage: An Orthodox Perspective. New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press. 1975. National Conference of Catholic Bishops. Standing Conference of Oriental Orthodox Churches, Oriental Orthodox – Roman Catholic Inter Church Marriages: And other Pastoral Relationships. Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference. 1995. Papathomas, A. G.“Un communautarisme ecclésial ouvert: Mariages dispars-mixtes et conversions d’adultes,” in Annals of St. John of Damascus Institute of Theology 7. Balamand, Lebanon: St. John of Damascus Institute of Theology. 2006, 71–90. Prothro, E. T. and Lutfy N. D. Changing Family Patterns in the Arab East. Beirut: American University of Beirut. 1974.

Bibliography

259

Vrame, A. C. (ed.). Intermarriage: Orthodox Perspectives. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press. 1997. —The Educating Icon: Teaching Wisdom and Holiness in the Orthodox Way. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press. 1999.

Chapter 11 Certeau, M. de. La faiblesse de croire. Paris: Éditions du Seuil. 1987, Ch. 2, 39–46. Cf. the book of Jean Gaudemet, Le mariage en Occident. Paris: Éditions du Cerf. 1987, with above a canon lawyer’s viewpoint. Freynet, M.-F. Les médiations du travail social. Lyon: Éditions de la Chronique Sociale. 1995. Lacroix X. Le mariage, tout simplement. Paris: Éditions. de l’Atelier. 1997.

Chapter 12 Bocken, I. “The language of the layman. the meaning of the imitatio christi for a theory of spirituality,” Studies in Spirituality 15 (2005): 217–49. Bourg, F. C. Where Two or Three Are Gathered. Christian Families as Domestic Churches. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. 2004. Brown, P. The Body and Society. Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity. New York: Columbia University Press. 1988. Browning, D. S., Miller-McLemore, B. J., and Couture, P. D. From Culture Wars to Common Ground. Religion and the American Family Debate. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox. 1997. Bruce, S. Secularization – In Defense of an Unfashionable Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2011. Cahill, L. S. Family. A Christian Social Perspective. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. 2000. Davie, G. Religion in Britain since 1945. Believing without Belonging. Oxford: Blackwell. 1994. Dillen, A. Het gezin: à Dieu? Een contextuele benadering van gezinnen in ethisch, pedagogisch en pastoraaltheologisch perspectief. Brussel: Koninklijke Vlaamse academie van België voor wetenschappen en kunsten. 2009. Ebertz, M. N. “Die ‘Koalition’ von Familie und Kirche – Ein Auslaufmodel? Soziologische Perspektive,” in B. Jans et. al. (eds), Familienwissenschaftliche und familienpolitische Signale. Max Wingen zum 70. Geburtstag. Graftschaft: VektorVerlag. 2000, 123–38.

260 Bibliography

Chapter 13 For official statistics, see www.stat.fi/til/perh/kuv_en.html “Finland’s Family Policy”— Brochures of the Ministry of Social Affairs 2006:12. Gamerman, E. “A Finland Fit for Children. The National Finnish Plan of Action called for by the Special Session on Children of the UN General,” Publications of the Ministry of social affairs and health 2005: 7. Helsinki 2005. Hiilamo, H. “What Makes Finnish Kids so Smart?” Wall Street Journal, 2 February 2008. Huttunen, J. “Changing Family Policy in Sweden and Finland During the 1990’s,” Social Policy and Administration 38 (2004). —(2007), “Homoseksuaalisuus Raamatussa ja kirkon opetuksessa,” Kirkon tutkimuskeskuksen julkaisuja 201. Tampere. Kiiski, J. “Isänä olemisen uudet suunnat” (“New Aspects of Fatherhood”). Hoiva-isiä ja ero-isiä. Jyväskylä. 2001. “Rakkaus lamassa. Parisuhdeongelmat ja 1990-luvun talouskriisi” (“Love in Recession. Relationship Problems and the Economical Crisis in the 1990’s”). Kirkon tutkimuskeskus. Tampere. 2002. “Kirkko ja rekisteröidyt parisuhteet” (“The Church and Registered Same Sex Couples”). Suomen evankelis-luterilaisenkirkon piispainkokouksen 14.9.2005 asettaman työryhmän mietintö. Suomen ev.-lut.kirkon keskushallinto, sarja B 2009:1. S. l. 2009. “Perheessä on voimaa” (“There is Power in the Family”). Kirkon perhepoliittisen projektin julkaisu. Helsinki. 1993.

Chapter 14 Abrudan, D. and Corniţescu, E. Arheologia Biblică (Biblical Archeology. Bucharest: Institutul Biblic şi de Misiune al Bisericii Ortodoxe Române Publishing House. 2002. Achimescu, N. “Familia creştină între tradiţie şi modernitate. Consideraţii teologico-sociologice” (The Christian Family between Tradition and Modernity. Theological-sociological considerations), in Familia creştină azi (The Christian Family Today). Iaşi: Trinitas Publishing House. 1995. Branişte, E. Liturgica Specială (Special Liturgics). Bucharest: Institutul Biblic şi de Misiune al Bisericii Ortodoxe Române Publishing House. 1980. Chrysostom, St John. “Omilia despre căsătorie – Comentariu la Epistola către Efeseni” (“The Sermon on Marriage – Comment to the Letter to the Ephesians”), in Marcel Hancheş (trans. and notes), Altarul Banatului, (2002): 1–3 Evdokimov, P. Taina Iubirii. Sfinţenia unirii conjugale în lumina tradiţiei ortodoxe (The

Bibliography

261

Mystery of Love. The Holiness of the conjugal union in the light of the Orthodox Tradition), Gabriela Moldoveanu (trans.). Bucharest: Christiana Publishing House. 1994. Galeriu, C. “Taina nunţii” (“The Holy Mystery of Marriage”), Studii Teologice (1960): 7–8. Mărginean, N. Psihologia persoanei (The Psychology of the Person). Sibiu. 1944. Mihoc, V. “Căsătoria şi familia în lumina Sfintei Scripturi. Naşterea de prunci, scop principal al căsătoriei” (“Marriage and the family in the light of the Holy Scriptures. The birth of children, the main purpose of the family”), Mitropolia Ardealului (1985): 9–10. Molitfelnic (Euchologion). Bucharest: Institutul Biblic şi de Misiune al Bisericii Ortodoxe Române Publishing House. 1992.

Chapter 15 Aðalbjarnardóttir, S. and Hafsteinsson, L. G. “Adolescents’ perceived parenting styles and their substance use: concurrent and longitudinal analyses,” Journal of Research on Adolescence 11(4) (2001): 401–23. Ágústsdóttir, M. “Guð heyrir hljóð sveinsins… Ábyrgð kirkjunnar á börnum í íslensku nútímasamfélagi.” Unpublished Cand. Theol. dissertation from the University of Iceland. 1992. Gunnlaugsson, G. and Einarsdóttir, J. “Að hemja hundrað flær á hörðu skinni… Ofbeldi og refsingar barna,” in G Þ. Jóhannesson and H. Björnsdóttir (eds), Rannsóknir í félagsvísindum, XI. Reykjavík: Félagsvísindastofnun Háskóla Íslands. 2010, pp. 51–8. Jónsson, G. A. “Þegar sonur þinn spyr þig – kennsla barna í 5. Mósebók,” in S. A. Bóasdóttir (ed.), Ritröð Guðfræðistofnunar 31(2) (2010): 60–71. Macquarrie, J. “Discipline,” in J. Macquarrie and J. Childress (eds), A New Dictionary of Christian Ethics. London: SCM Press Ltd. 1986, 159. Sigurbjörnsson, K. Lítið kver um kristna trú. Reykjavík: Skálholtsútgáfan. 2000.

Chapter 16 Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio of Pope John Paul II to the Episcopate, to the Clergy and to the Faithful of the whole Catholic Church on the Role of the Christian Family in the Modern World. Rom: Vatican. 1981. Böszörményi-Nagy I. and Framo, J. (eds). Intensive Practical Family Therapy. Theoretical and Aspects, 2nd edn. New York: Brunner and Mazel. 1985. Bukowski S. “Familie neu gelebt,” Junge Kirche 72(3) (2011): 58–60.

262 Bibliography Dienstboek – Een Proeve. Deel II: Leven – Zegen – Gemeenschap. Zoetermeer Boekencentrum. 2004. Dressler-Kromminga, S. Die reformierten.Upd@te (2010): 3, 17–20. Europe and Family Policy. Solidarity and Education at the Heart of our Societies. A Discussion Paper of the Church and Society Commission of the Conference of European Churches (2011). Gosker, M. “Zur Gemeinschaft berufen, der Gerechtigkeit verpflichtet,” Catholica 64 (2011): 1, 38–52. Groeger, G., “Familie, Familienverbände I, evang. Sicht,” in H. Krüger, W. Löser, and W. Müller-Römheld, Ökumenelexicon, 2nd edn. Frankfurt am Main: Otto Lembeck, Josef Knecht. 1987, 372. Holy Bible, Contemporary English Version (American Bible Society, 1999). Koffeman L. “From RES to REC,” in M. Gosker (ed.), A Man for all Seasons. Essays in Recognition of the Work of Richard van Houten for the Reformed Ecumenical Council 1987-2010. Grand Rapids, MI: Reformed Ecumenical Council. 2010, 71–7. Maldonado, J. E. “Family,” in N. Lossky, J. Mïguez Bonino, J. S. Pobee, T. F. Stransky, G. Wainwright, and P. Webb (eds), Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement. Geneva: World Council of Churches. 1991, 415–17. Nyomi S., van Houten, R., Greenaway, K., and Reamonn, P (eds). This is our Family Five Bible Studies. Geneva and Grand Rapids, MI: World Alliance of Reformed Churches and Reformed Ecumenical Council. 2010. Vries G. de, Monteiro, M., Merckelbach, H., Kalbfleisch, P., and Draijer, N. (eds). Seksueel misbruik van minderjarigen in de Rooms-Katholieke Kerk. Rapport van de commissie van onderzoek. 2011.

Chapter 17 Balswich, J. O. and Balswich, J. K. Familia, o perspectivă creştină asupra căminului contemporan (A Christian Perspective on the Contemporary Family), Tabita Gabor (trans. into Romanian). Oradea: Casa Cărţii Publishing House. 2009. Bizău, I. Viaţa în Hristos şi maladia secularizării (The Life in Christ and the Secularism Disease). Cluj-Napoca: Patmos Publishing House. 2002. Breck, J. Darul sacru al vieţii (The Holy Gift of Life), 2nd edn, His Eminence Irineu Pop Bistriţeanul (trans.). Cluj-Napoca: Patmos Publishing House. 2003. Broscăreanu, R. “Despre Taina Sfintei Cununii” (“Concerning the Holy Sacrament of Marriage”). Ortodoxia 4 (1986). Chirilă, P. (coord.), Principii de bioetică. o abordare ortodoxă (The Principles of Bioethics: An Orthodox Approach). Bucharest: Christiana Publishing House. 2008. His Holiness Daniel, Patriarch of the Romanian Orthodox Church. “The Dignity and the Responsibility of Priest’s Family in the Church Life,” http://www.crestinortodox.

Bibliography

263

ro/stiri/ crestinortodox/ demnitatea-responsabilitatea-familiei-preotului-viatabisericii-123721.html Engelhardt, T. H. jr. Fundamentele Bioeticii Creştine-perspectivă ortodoxă (The Bases of the Christian Bioethics – An Orthodox Perspective), M. Neamţu, C. Login, and Ioan I. Ică jr. (trans.). Sibiu: Deisis Publishing House. 2005. Evdokimov, P. Taina iubirii (The Mistery of Love), G. Moldoveanu and E. Christiana (trans.). Bucureşti: Christiana Publishing House. 1994. Faros, Pr. Filothei, Manual de iubire (Handbook of Love) de O. Lăzărescu (trans.). Galați: Egumeniţa Publishing House. 2005.

Chapter 18 Brádňanská, N. “Formovanie obrazu Boha u detí mladšieho školského veku” (“Formation of Image of God in the Younger Age Children”). Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Banská Bystrica: KETM PF UMB. 2008. —“Od generácie Y ku generácii Z: zamerané na generáciu Y,” in Od generácie Y ku generácii Z. Banská Bystrica: KTK PF UMB. 2012, pp. 9–26. —“Od generácie Y ku generácii Z: zamerané na generáciu Z,” in Od generácie Y ku generácii Z. Banská Bystrica: KTK PF UMB. 2012, pp. 114–41. Brádňanská Ondrášek, N. and Hanesová, D. “Theologizing with Children: Research on Children’s Images of God in Slovakia,” F. Kraft, H. Roose, and G. Bűttner (eds), Symmetrical communication? Philosophy and Theology in Classrooms across Europe. Loccum: Religionspädagogisches Institut. 2011, pp. 75–84. Bravená Maďarová, A. “Náboženská výchova a morálny rozvoj detí mladšieho školského veku” (“Religious Education and Moral Development of Younger Age Children”). Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Banská Bystrica: KETM PF UMB. 2011. Čižmáriková, K. “Vplyv socio-morálneho programu na klímu triedy,” in J. Kaliská (ed.) Dobro a zlo, alebo o morálke 1 – Psychologické a filozofické aspekty morálky v edukácii. Banská Bystrica: PF UMB. 2013, pp. 259–68. Frost, A. “Never had it so good?.” Catalyst by CARE UK, www.care.org.uk, (accessed 4 October 2011). Greenberg, E. H. and Weber, K., Generation We: How Millennial Youth are Taking Over America And Changing Our World Forever. Emeryville: Pachatusan. 2008. Hanesová, D. Náboženská výchova v Európskej únii (Religious Education in European Union). Banská Bystrica: PF UMB. 2006. —“Religious Education in Slovakia,” in E. Kuyk and P. Schreiner et al. (eds), Religious Education in Europe. Oslo: ICCS and IKO Publ.ishing House. 2007, pp. 173–7. —“Slovakia: Educational Goals and Methods in Religious Education in a Post-Communist Country,” in H. G. Ziebert and U. Riegel (eds), How Teachers in

264 Bibliography Europe Teach Religion. An International Empirical Study in 16 Countries. Münster: LIT. 2009, pp. 199–210. Kotásková, J. and Vajda, I. Test morální zralosti osobnosti (Tests of Moral Personality Maturity). Bratislava: Psychodiagnostické a didaktické testy. 1983. Šalátová, K. “Rozvíjanie mravných vlastností detí mladšieho školského veku” (“Development of moral characteristics of younger age children”) Unpublished thesis. Banská Bystrica: PF UMB. 2005. Šoltésová, V. “Vplyv náboženskej výchovy na hodnotovú orientáciu rómskych detí).” Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Banská Bystrica: KETM PF UMB. 2008. —“Die Religiosität der Romakinder in der Slowakei,” in Ch. Kalloch and M. Schreiner, “Gott hat das in Auftrag gegeben” Mit Kindern über Schöpfung und Weltentstehung nachdenken. Jahrbuch für Kindertheologie, Band 11. Stuttgart: Calwer. 2012, pp. 185–97. ‘The Ten Commandments of Generation Z’, Time Out Sydney. http://www.au.timeout. com/sy dney/kids/features/1565/the-ten-commandments-of-generation-z) Winterhoff, M. Warum unsere Kinder Tyrannen werden: Oder: Die Abschaffung der Kindheit. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2008. “The Zero Motivation Generation,” http://www.goethe.de/wis/fut/bko/en6480095.htm (interview with M. Winterhoff).

Index of Names Abraham 57, 60 Aðalbjarnardóttir, S. 198–9 Alypios (husband of Gorgonia) 57 Amphilochius of Iconium 55, 56, 69 Arendt, H. 144–5 Aristotle 21 Athanasius the Great 43 Auffret-Pericone, M. 149 Balch, D. L. 17 Basil of Caesarea 55 Great, the 43, 65–71, 73–7 Bonhoeffer, D. 163 Böszörményi-Nagy I. 203 Bovon, F. 11 Bukowski, S. 209 Bultmann, R. 30 Buonaparte, Napoleon 145 Caesarios (brother of Gregory) 56, 57, 59, 60, 63, 64 Čarnić, E. 38, 39 Chryssavgis, J. xi Collins, R. F. 32 Constantine VII (emperor) 75 Crates 19 Daniel, C. (patriarch) 65, 67, 223 Dedon, T. xi Diodorus of Tarsus 69 Dressler-Kromminga, S. 212 Emilianos Simonopetritul 101 Evdokimov, P. xi

Gnilka, J. 6 Gorgonia (sister of Gregory) 57, 60, 63, 64 Gregory of Nazianzus 55–64, 65 Gregory of Nyssa 43, 58, 65 Gregory the Elder 55, 56, 60–4 Henry IV 146 Hinkmar (archbishop of Reims) 122 Houten, R. van 210 Hubbard, M.V. 19 Ignatius 38 Jerôme (saint) 152 Joanides, Ch. 136 John Chrysostom 73, 92, 102, 104, 108, 109 John Paul II (pope) 81–92, 93, 100, 155, 156–9, 205 John Scholasticus 68 John Zonaras 52 Johnson, E. 37 Jónsson, G. 195 Julian (emperor) 63 Justin M. (patriarch) 66 Khodre, G. (archbishop of Mount Lebanon) 129 Koffeman, L. 212 Kohlberg, L. 232 Kuyper, A. 211

Fitzmyer, J. A. 26, 27, 30, 32 Framo, J. 203 Francis of Assisi 163

Leo the Philosopher (emperor) 44, 75 Leo XIII 96–7, 156 Lombard P. 123 Luckmann, Th. 160–1 Luther, M. 117, 120, 122, 123, 125, 126

George (Saint) 65 Gide, A. 151 Gitari (bishop of Kenya) 209

Macquarrie, J. 194, 198 Macrina (sister of Basil) 55, 58 Maďarová, A. B. 232

266 Maldonado, J. E. 209 Mercury (saint) 65 Meyendorff, J. xi, 135 Moses 57 Mounier, E. 149 Moxnes, H. 28 Murphy-O’Connor, J. 28, 32 Musonius Rufus 23–4 Nicholas I 75 Noah, 56, 57 Nonna 60 Ondrášek, N. B. 226 Onesimos 33–4 Osiek, C. 17, 20, 21, 24, 32, 37, 38 Panikar, R. 147 Paul VI (pope) 87 Paul of Tarsus 17 Paul, Vincent de 146 Pedanius Secundus 22 Photios 68 Pius XI, Pope 156 Plutarch 19, 20–1 Popović, J. 38 Quintilius 19 Raes, A. xi

Index of Names Revault d’Allones, M. 144 Ritzer, K. xi Roman I (emperor) 75 Romero, O. 163 Šalátová, K. 235 Samuel 57 Sarah 60 Sava of Buzau (saint) 65 Sava the Pious 65 Seneca 21, 31 Sigurbjörnsson, K. 197 Šoltésová, V. 231 Tacitus 22 Tarazi, P. N. 15 Tertullian 84 Theodosius the Great 65 Thomas Aquinas 123 Trostyanskiy, S. xi Tychicus 34 Vrame, A. 137–8 Waaijman, Kees 161–4 Wessels, G. F. 22–3 Zola, E. 145

Index of Subjects Actus generationis 121 Anankē 18 Anastasis xii Arcanum divinae 156 Casti connubii 156 Copula carnalis 122 Desertio malitiosa 126 Ex opere operato 123 Familiaris consortio 156 Hetaira 27 Hierodoulos 27 Hypotagma xxiii, xxiv, xxix Kairos xiii, xxi Kenosis xv, xxii–xxv, xxviii, xxix Merkavah xxv Metanoia, xx 137, 214 Pornē 27 behavior 3, 64, 89, 106, 172, 192, 194, 200, 201, 214, 219, 228, 230, 235, 237, 238 Canon Law 47–50, 93, 95–98, 125, 131 sacred cannons 41–52 Catholic ix, x, 17, 26, 39, 81, 83, 85, 87, 89, 91, 93–100, 117–31, 134–6, 143, 145–7, 149, 151, 153, 154, 156, 159, 160, 203, 205, 206, 219, 237 Christmas 96, 147, 197, 232 Church viii, ix, xi–xviii, xxii–xxx, 4–9, 17, 31–9, 41–7, 49–54, 56, 62, 65–78, 82–9, 92–100, 103, 105, 108, 110–12, 114, 117–19, 123–31, 133–9, 145, 147, 150, 153–65, 168, 170, 173–7, 179–85, 192, 196, 197, 199, 201, 203–7, 209–12, 214–16, 219–23, 227, 231–233, 237, 238 denomination(al), ix–x, 17, 93, 95–8, 117, 130–7, 153, 168, 206, 219, 232, 236, 237, 240 Church Father(s) 36, 69, 68, 69, 73, 76–8

Clergy 48, 51, 63, 68, 70, 72, 74, 121, 129, 160, 162 Communion (Holy) xv, xvi, xxi, xxiv, xxv, xxvii, xxix, 8, 12, 36, 45, 52, 71, 75, 76, 78, 81–8, 96, 110, 114, 119, 129, 134, 135, 158, 177–9, 182, 183, 203–17 penance 46, 52, 71, 74, 76, 78 community vii, ix, 4–9, 15, 22, 25–8, 31–6, 82–6, 88–95, 98–100, 105, 112, 114, 118, 137, 138, 144, 157, 158, 160–7, 173, 174, 178, 179, 184, 185, 196, 205, 207, 214, 222–6, 228 competence 104, 159–61, 230, 237, 240 computer 227, 228, 232, 234 communication vii, 54, 111, 113, 130, 217, 219, 222, 228, 231, 240 games 228, 232, 234 internet 54, 227, 228 Council 41, 42, 46, 48, 50, 53, 64, 75, 95–7, 99, 122, 123, 145, 156, 158, 197, 203, 210–12, 219 dignity vii, 18, 22, 23, 39, 77, 89, 90, 92, 94, 109, 118, 120, 137, 148 discipline x, 67, 68, 72, 78, 132, 189, 191–201, 230 discrimination 18, 90, 107–9, 171, 223 Easter 128, 147, 151, 196, 197, 232, 234 education x, xxix, 9, 17, 20, 24, 25, 51, 55, 59, 72, 77, 84, 85, 87–9, 91, 92, 106, 110, 111, 120, 127–9, 133–9, 143, 146, 151, 168, 169, 178, 195, 204–6, 216, 225–40 catechesis 87, 91, 130, 137, 231, 237, formal 230 methods 228, 229, 236, 237, 239 process 230, 239 Eucharistic xxii, xxvii, 25, 51, 76, 96, 123, 134, 135, 206

268

Index of Subjects

family vii–x, xiv, xxii, xxiv, 3, 8–11, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20, 23, 24, 38, 39, 46, 50, 51, 54, 55, 58, 60–2, 64, 67, 70, 76, 77, 81, 84, 85–91, 98, 99, 102, 104–15, 117, 118, 120, 121, 127–38, 143–9, 151–9, 163–85, 193, 195, 197, 199–223, 226, 229, 232–4 Christian family vii–x, 7, 36, 41, 61, 69, 78, 88, 90, 100, 111, 114, 132, 156, 157, 181, 184, 185, 203, 205, 206, 209–11, 215, 216, 218, 220, 222, 223 Christian (Catholic) family 143, 147, 154 conjugal harmony 149–50, 179 couple xv–xix, 6, 20, 29, 37, 39, 46, 54, 84, 93, 95, 98, 101, 106, 110, 113, 127–31, 135–9, 143, 145, 146, 149–51, 157, 167–70, 173–5, 179, 183, 184, 191, 206, 214, 216, 219 domestic Church 85, 88, 158 extended family 203, 209 family community 89, 167 family (marriage) counseling 176, 203 family ideology 173 family institution 170 family life x, 67, 77, 86, 91, 102, 105, 110, 113, 114, 118, 127, 129, 132, 136, 147, 149, 153, 154, 156, 163, 164, 168–70, 172–9, 181–4, 203–7, 209, 211, 212, 217, 219, 223 family spirituality 158, 164 Finnish family 174 French family 146–9, 151 inter-family level 106 inter–family relationships 105, 108, 223 Jewish family 3, 17 “Nuclear family” 167, 203 Occidental family 143 Orthodox family 41 Patchwork families 204 paterfamilias xxiii, 10, 19 patriarchal family 10, 144 pregnancy 52, 218 procreation 82, 86, 94, 120, 133, 146, 221 reformed family 210–12 saintly family 60

traditional family 106, 132, 218 family (crisis) xi, 55, 63, 110, 114, 129, 143–5, 150, 151, 163, 216, 218, 223, 231, 240 abortion 52, 174, 216, 220–3 adoption 50, 84, 145, 146, 167, 223 adultery 20, 53, 71, 73–5, 94, 121, 125, 126, 180, 216, 220, 221 bigamy 47, 53 child abuse 172, 205 cohabitation vii, viii, 4, 43, 45, 46, 72, 123, 145, 146, 174, 182, 218 concubinage, 45, 70, 107 divorce, xv, xvi, xxii, xxvi, 5–7, 23, 29–31, 47, 53, 70, 75, 76, 94, 111, 123–6, 129, 131, 132, 144, 145, 149, 150, 172, 175, 176, 180, 182, 183, 204, 216, 217, 220, 221, 223, 229–30 family violence 172 fidelity vii, 37, 82, 85, 151, 183 fornication 6, 26, 27, 30, 47, 71, 72, 75, 77, 122 infidelity 19, 20, 82, 172, 180, 221 monoparental 145 planning 206, 216 trial marriage 70, 216, 218 father xiv, xv, 8, 14, 19, 21, 22, 25, 33, 36, 43, 55–7, 60–7, 68–71, 73–8, 84, 86–9, 96, 101, 103, 118, 119, 128, 129, 132–6, 144, 146, 163, 170–3, 178, 180, 183, 189–95, 198–209, 213, 215, 220, 222, 228 freedom viii, xv, xxiii, 13, 21, 26, 27, 32, 34, 63, 64, 86, 89, 90, 109, 113, 120, 135, 139, 148, 151, 216, 220, 222, 230 friendship, 24, 163, 229, 234 generation viii, x, xxix, 16, 66, 72, 90, 105, 111, 121, 128, 134, 154, 162–4, 192, 195, 212, 225–40 genealogy 164 generation X 226 generation Y 226–8 generation Z 225–40 global, 210, 227, 228, 231, 240 globalization 127 God vii, ix, xii, xiv–xxvii, xxix, xxx, 3,



Index of Subjects

4, 6–10, 12–15, 17, 23, 26–38, 42, 43, 50, 56–65, 73, 75, 77, 81–97, 102, 104–7, 112, 118–26, 131, 135, 138, 139, 147, 150, 156–8, 162–5, 173, 177–85, 189, 202, 204–9, 211, 213–17, 221–3, 232–40 good xix, 14, 21, 27, 29–32, 36–9, 48, 56–62, 66, 67, 72, 77, 78, 86, 89–106, 109, 114, 120, 144, 145, 148, 162, 163, 172, 173, 181, 183, 189–201, 207, 208, 213, 226, 229, 233–5, 236, 240 Gospel ix, xvi, xvii, xxi, xxvi–xxviii, 3–5, 7–18, 30, 33, 38, 39, 42, 66, 67, 87, 88, 94, 102, 103, 148–51, 208, 214, 220 Greek legislation 41, 42, 47, 49–53 civil code 44, 47, 49 penal law 47, 52 happiness vii, xviii, 18, 82, 84, 102, 106, 149, 151, 181–3, 185, 202, 217, 233 holiness xxix, 67, 89, 123, 128, 151, 183, 216, 217 Holy Trinity xxv, 62, 67, 69, 177, 178, 213–16 identity, ix, x, 25, 28, 36, 85, 108, 109, 111, 112, 117, 128, 129, 134, 210, 226 image, x, xiv, xviii, xix, xxv, xxvi, 11, 19, 37, 58, 66, 72, 81, 82, 86, 92, 93, 118, 119, 138, 139, 150, 158, 178–80, 215, 222, 232, 239 injustice 14, 16, 201, 208, 209, 234 issues ix, xix, 4, 21, 37, 42, 44, 54, 68, 70, 77, 78, 108, 113, 131, 134, 136, 137, 155, 156, 163, 193, 206, 207, 212, 218, 225, 226, 233–7, 240 Kingdom of God xii, xvii–xx, xxvii, 87, 92, 185, 208 laity 74, 158, 160–1, 164 life vii, viii, x–xii, xiv, xvi–xviii, xxii, xxiv, xxv, xvii–xxix, 3–5, 7–12, 14–16, 21, 24, 27–33, 43, 52, 55–9, 61, 63–8, 77, 81–91, 94–7, 100–3, 105–15, 118–20, 127–33, 136–9, 143–51, 154, 156–65, 168–70,

269

172–85, 189–92, 194–6, 199, 200, 203–9, 211–15, 217, 219, 221–3, 227, 228, 234, 236–9 liturgy xxvi, xxviii, xxx, 39, 76, 89, 91, 135, 158 love vii–xi, xiii, xv, xx, xxv–xxix, 3, 5, 9–12, 15, 16, 19, 31, 33–9, 64, 67, 72, 73, 77, 81–94, 101–3, 106, 108, 109, 114, 118–22, 129, 131, 137–9, 143, 148–52, 157, 177–85, 189–201, 205–8, 212–17, 219, 221–3, 229, 237–40 Lutheran ix, 99, 117–26, 168, 173–6, 196, 210, 237 marriage, vii–xviii, xxi–xxx, 3–8, 19–20, 23–5, 28–31, 37, 39, 42–51, 53–4, 61, 70–5, 77, 81–5, 87, 89, 92–104, 106–7, 109, 112–14, 117–37, 139, 145, 147–9, 150–1, 154–7, 159, 163, 168–70, 173–7, 179–85, 204–7, 213–21. abstinence 7, 8, 72 celibacy xii, xiv, 3, 7, 8, 25, 28–30, 70, 92, 123, 206 child (children) xiv, xxviii, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, 14, 15, 20–4, 36–9, 48–60, 71, 77, 83–100, 105, 109–15, 121, 122, 127–38, 144–56, 163, 167–76, 179–183, 189–207, 212, 213, 216, 218, 219, 221, 225–40 civil marriage 44, 45, 47–50, 53, 132 consanguinity 49, 73, 125 gender 58, 74, 106, 132, 233 godchild 50 godparent(s) 45, 50, 184 grandmother 55 grandparents 90, 110, 167, 234, 236 Holy matrimony 214, 223 husband xxiii–xxviii, 19–21, 24, 29, 31, 32, 36, 37, 39, 49–51, 55, 57–61, 63, 76, 85–7, 94, 96, 100, 102–4, 108–10, 121, 126, 128, 129, 132, 134–6, 150, 171–7, 179–81, 185, 220 marriage preparation 127, 129, 134, 136, 150–1, 183–4 mixed marriage ix, 31, 48, 49, 70, 93, 95–100

270

Index of Subjects

monogamy 6, 182 parent-child 199, 228, 229 parents x, 9, 19, 37, 39, 51, 52, 57, 61, 63, 64, 71, 77, 85, 87–92, 110–15, 121, 133, 146, 157, 167, 171, 173, 175, 176, 183, 184, 189, 191–201, 204, 226, 228–40 parenting styles, 198–9 partner relations 163 partnership viii, xxv, 30, 106, 112, 120, 229 sacrament of marriage xxvii, 42, 44, 45, 48, 87, 94, 98, 130, 137, 150–1, 177–85, 216, 221 wife xv, xxiii, xxiv, xxvii, xviii, 7, 14, 15, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 29, 31, 32, 37, 43, 49–51, 53, 56, 59–61, 71–6, 85–7, 94, 96, 100–4, 108–12, 119, 124–6, 129, 145, 150, 171, 178, 180, 181, 202 martyrdom xxv–xxviii media 131, 147, 149, 226, 229, 231 mother xv, xxi, 14, 55, 56, 60, 61, 64, 74, 84, 86, 96, 119, 132, 138, 144–6, 168, 171–3, 178, 180, 181, 189, 190–5, 198, 200, 203–5, 207–9, 213, 218, 228, 230, 235 monastic asceticism xi, xxix, 7, 58 chastity 7–8, 24, 73 fervour 66 leadership xi life 65, 67, 118 monks 46, 50, 62, 66, 68, 72, 162 state xi status 72 type 159 moral viii, 3, 21, 24, 25, 50, 69, 74, 76–8, 86, 90, 106, 113, 114, 144, 149, 177, 178, 181, 182, 216, 222, 223, 225, 227, 231, 232, 235–7 ethics viii, xix, xxiv, 3, 28, 155, 182, 227, 232, 237 morality viii, 26, 68, 143, 144, 154, 156, 181, 214, 218, 223 immoral 19, 26 immorality vii, 27, 180, 216 New Testament xiv, xvi, xxiii, 3, 14, 17, 18, 34, 37, 38, 43, 48, 53, 199, 207, 220

Old Testament xv, xxvi, 3, 34, 37, 119, 163, 190, 194–5, 207–8 Orthodox viii, ix–xiii, xvi, xxii, xxvi–xxx, 38, 41–51, 53–6, 62, 65, 68, 69, 94, 96, 99, 101, 102, 105, 106, 109–14, 127–39, 173, 174, 177–85, 203, 206, 213–23, 237 Church ix, xvi, xxix, xxx, 44–7, 49, 50, 54, 65, 94, 99, 110, 127–31, 134–9, 173, 174, 184, 203, 206, 214, 219, 220, 223 faith 48, 49, 135–9, 213 spirituality ix, 102, 105, 110, 114 pastoral care, 54, 70, 73, 75, 77, 96, 98, 99, 153, 157 peace, xiii, 31, 105, 120, 191, 200, 202, 207–10, 212 people, xv, xviii, xx, xxii, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12–15, 22, 23, 25, 31, 56, 57, 63, 65, 66, 72, 73, 82, 87, 90–2, 102–10, 112, 113, 119, 130, 138, 144, 147–9, 154, 157, 161, 162, 167–70, 172–6, 182–4, 190, 191, 195, 204–9, 214, 215–18, 225, 227, 229, 232–3, 235–8 disabled 233 homeless 233 hungry xxviii, 233 race xviii, 81, 213, 233 pilgrimage 61, 212 Pontifical Council for the Family 158 for Promoting Christian Unity 210 prayer xix, xxvi, 50, 58, 61, 62, 64, 67, 78, 89, 99, 112, 139, 147, 156, 183, 192, 193, 195, 197, 207, 234, 237–9 Priest xix, xxvi, xxvii, 8, 9, 46, 48, 50, 51, 54, 64, 68–70, 87, 101, 120, 123, 129, 137–9, 145–7, 156, 157, 179, 183, 184 Priesthood 48, 64, 74, 118, 157 prophets 14, 103, 119, 163, 200, 208 Protestant x, 17, 96, 117, 121, 126, 127, 131, 173, 174, 203, 205–7, 209, 210, 211, 219 Reformed 99, 204, 206, 207, 210–12, 237 relationship vi–xi, xiv, xvii, xxiii, xxvii, 13, 19, 20, 24, 28, 37, 43, 45, 50, 51, 54, 62, 63, 69, 72, 83, 85, 86, 90, 91,



Index of Subjects

103, 105, 106, 108, 109, 111, 112, 114, 115, 119, 120, 123, 128, 129, 133, 138, 139, 145–7, 150–5, 162–5, 168, 169, 172, 173, 175, 183, 191, 200, 203–8, 211, 213, 217–19, 225, 228–30, 232, 233, 237, 239, 240 religion vii, 8, 34, 48, 49, 61, 91, 128, 135, 137, 147, 148, 159, 160–4, 172, 181, 191, 196, 219, 233, 234, 237 religious vi–x, 8, 12, 18, 42, 90, 91, 95, 99, 105, 106, 128, 129, 132, 137, 138, 153, 156, 159, 160–5, 168, 171–4, 179, 184, 195–7, 219, 223, 225–9, 231–40 affiliation 112, 135, 137 atmosphere 128, 129 backgrounds ix, 15, 16, 133 ceremony viii, 93, 132 denomination 131, 133, 168 education x, 72, 87, 129, 225, 226, 228, 231, 232, 234, 236, 237, 239, 240 experience 37, 161, 165 laity 162, 164 life 77, 112, 159, 162 marriage 42, 44, 45, 47, 53 practice 134, 153, 160, 162, 163 traditions 160, 162, 164 values 96, 90 research 17–19, 53, 136, 198, 199, 231, 232, 235, 236, 237 responsibility viii, 59, 81, 87, 89, 104, 107, 134, 136, 156, 178, 182, 185, 192, 197 Roman Catholic Church 93–9, 156, 205–6 school x, 5, 17, 87, 89–92, 95, 102, 114, 133, 148, 162–4, 193, 196, 197, 225–7, 230–40 information 130, 137, 226, 227, 230, 231, 239, 240 kindergarten 196, 230 learning 89, 95, 136, 195, 225, 230 Second Vatican Council 97, 156 secularization 54, 153, 159, 173 sexual xxix, 7, 18–20, 22–9, 53, 106,

271

121–6, 130–3, 147, 150, 151, 154, 156, 172, 174, 180, 216, 226, 227 abuse 22, 23, 26, 37, 76, 172, 198, 205, 226 heterosexual 46, 145, 146 homosexual 4, 146, 212 morality 26 and social morality 156 slave(ry) 13, 17–24, 28, 29, 32–4, 37–9, 71, 108, 173 spirituality viii–ix, xi, 118, 158–60, 162–4, 217, 227 Christian spirituality viii, 162, 183–4 lay spirituality 163–5 symbol xiii, xvii, xix, xx, xxii, xxix, 82, 83, 94, 105, 119, 130, 136, 190, 232 taboo 107, 151, 172, 236 terrorism 226, 227, 231, 235, 240 tolerance vii, 25, 69, 90, 230 transcendence xxvi, 240 unity 6, 28, 69, 82, 84, 86, 94, 99, 105, 108, 109, 119, 124, 128, 129, 134, 135, 138, 139, 145, 177, 178, 180, 207, 210, 212, 215, 216 values viii, 3, 10, 38, 67, 86–9, 90, 95, 109, 114, 132, 144, 148, 151, 155, 171–5, 181, 191, 200, 214, 216–18, 225, 228, 231, 233, 235 virginity 7, 20, 30, 42, 92, 118 virtual world 228, 240 virtues xv, 57, 65, 77, 87, 89, 90, 103, 104, 114, 185, 201, 215, 216 vocation vii, 31, 59, 81, 82, 87, 90–4, 114, 118, 119, 156, 157 wedding feast xvii–xxii, xxix widow 14–16, 30, 66, 70, 71, 94, 118, 220 wisdom 3, 4, 12, 16, 56, 67, 124, 181, 185, 189, 192 women xxiii, xxix, 14, 18–21, 31, 32, 35, 37, 39, 55, 58, 61, 69, 70, 75, 76, 82, 87, 104–8, 128, 132, 133, 146–149, 169–74, 197, 218–20