I think The Salvation Army should bless marriages but should not conduct weddings. I will set out my reasoning in this article.

I am not advocating for change, as this is quite a radical position to take. But it is a position which I believe to be in keeping with Salvationist Theology and is perhaps closer to Salvationist distinctives than current practice. I do not suggest that the Army should change it’s practice, nor would I refuse to perform a wedding.

Rather, I am offering a different perspective and a challenge to the current mode of thinking about marriage.

Introduction: Why Does This Matter?

In the UK half a million people get married every year, and 40% of all marriages end in divorce.

In 2008 a woman married the Eiffel tower and up until the early 20th century women in China could marry the dead.

Rachel Lennon writes: Marriage has existed in almost every society through all time and place in recorded history. But there’s still no consensus – anthropologists and historians really struggle to define it at all. It’s always between two people? Well, obviously polygamy is a big part of the history. Or, a traditional marriage is between a man and a woman? Well – same sex-marriages have happened in every populated continent. Marriage is more diverse and broader than most people think.

The Salvation Army is going through a period of complexity over how it should understand marriage. Some are pushing for a more inclusive position on marriage. Others are affirming what is called the traditional position on marriage.

What frequently occurs in these discussions is a lack of appreciation or understanding of the complex history of the development of marriage over the millennia.

In order to understand the present, we need to know how we got to this place.

Our inherited beliefs did not emerge fully formed but have grown and changed over centuries and millennia. Equally, for those who want to see change, it is important to understand how that change would fit into the history of marriage.

Perhaps most importantly is the difficulty in picking apart the links between state and church in defining marriage. Is a civil marriage complete on its own or does it need a religious element? Is a religious marriage sufficient or is the legal bit actually necessary?

In this article I will start by setting out the standard definitions for types of marriages. It’s handy to know what we are talking about after all!

Then I work through the history of marriage, with a particular emphasis on Christianity and the UK. Explore some Salvationist elements in marriage. Then finish with a suggestion about how to perceive marriage.

Defining Types of Marriage

Monogamy

A form of marriage where the person has only one spouse, either for their entire life or at one time (serial monagamy). The work of Anthropologist Jack Goody argues that monogamous marriage is more likely in cultures with intensive plough-agriculture, settled land holdings, and dowry practices. This is especially the case in monarchial societies with monotheistic beliefs.

Polygamy

A form of marriage with one man and multiple female spouses. The spouse’s are not equal but have an internal hierarchy including in their children. According to the Ethnographic Atlas of 1,231 societies noted, 186 were monogamous; 453 had occasional polygyny; 588 had more frequent polygyny, and 4 had polyandry.

Polygyny

Polygyny means the man has multiple wives, but the wives are considered equal and must be treated the same.  

A study of global human genetic diversity revealed that polygyny was common in Europe and Asia until the community moved from hunter-gatherers to settled farmers somewhere about 10,000 – 5000 years ago. Then there was a move to monogamy.

In communities where there is a high mortality rate, especially amongst men, Polygyny means every woman can have a husband and thus financial support. In some societies the wives are sisters before they marry, or consider themselves to be sisters after being married.

Robin Fox argued: the major difference between polygyny and monogamy could be stated thus: while plural mating occurs in both systems, under polygyny several unions may be recognized as being legal marriages while under monogamy only one of the unions is so recognized. Often, however, it is difficult to draw a hard and fast line between the two.

Polyandry

In Polyandry one wife will have multiple husbands. It says a lot about societies that very few of them will accept Polyandry. Frequently due to the need to know who the father is because in those societies inheritance is patrilineal. It is more common in societies with high male mortality rates or with the belief that babies can have more than one father.

Plural Marriage

A form of polyamourus  marriage where more than two people form a family unit where all the members are considered to be married to each other. All the members share parental responsibility. Historically this has been rare but is increasing popular today.

Same-Sex Marriage

This is marriage between two people of the same sex or gender. These are controversial in some sections of society.

Historically it has been more common in some indigenous communities especially amongst Native Americans or in Imperial China. There is some examples of same-sex marriages in Ancient Greece as a form of companionment marriage as opposed to arranged marriages between opposite-sex people.

Ancient Rome had very strict cultural prohibitions against same-sex behaviour between people of the same social class. It was only acceptable to penetrate someone of the same sex if they were of lower social status. This was because the person being penetrated was seen as being in the feminine position and this subordinate and dishonoured.

This influenced early Christianity, especially in the Codex Theodosianus issued in AD 438. However there is an example of a liturgy used by the Eastern Orthodox Church in the 12th century for the Order for Solemnisation of Same Sex Union, where the celebrant asked God to grant the participants grace to love one another and to abide unhated and not a cause of scandal all the days of their lives, with the help of the Holy Mother of God and all thy saints.

The earliest recorded instance of a same-sex marriage in Latin Christianity was in Rome in AD 1581.

Temporary Marriage

This is a marriage  which is a for an agreed period of time with a fixed end. Examples include ‘walking marriages’ from the Mosuo people in China, or handfasting in ‘Celtic’ traditions.

Also the practice of Niamh Mu’tah in pre-Islamic Arabic countries and in Islamic law. This is a fixed-term marriage contract which historically has been used as a cover for sex work, for diplomatic embassies, and to allow women to donate their ova legally.

Marriage In The Bible

Genesis 2 – Becoming One Flesh

Genesis 2 is often the starting place for trying to grapple with the kinds of marriage that are in the bible.

The man and the woman are together in a partnership, to help each other and support each other. They become one flesh, joining together in a way which creates something more than two people.

But they are not entirely subsumed into each other. They become one flesh, not one person. Who they are remains distinct, even as they participate in each other.

There is no ceremony. No vows made except perhaps for when the man names her. But this story should be held in tension with the creation narrative of Genesis 1 where God created both male and female and told them to multiply and fill the earth.

In Genesis 2 the woman is made from the flesh of the man. In Genesis 1 they are made at the same time. Genesis 2 is often used to provide evidence for why the wife should be subservient to the man, because she came from man and because she was made to be his helper.

However, when both creation accounts are held together something else emerges. There is unity between male and female. Humanity was created to create and spread, to form partnerships, and to know each other as more than just another person.

Problematic Patriarchs and Troublesome Kings

This is not the end point for marriage in the Bible. It is one of the ways of looking at it, based on a world without systems, structures, organisations, or laws. Two people becoming one because they are a helper for each other, able to know each other without being embarrassed or ashamed because they have become one flesh.

Marriage is about two people who see each other for who they are and don’t shy away but choose each other and uplift each other. No need for anything else than that mutual commitment to each other.

Patriarchs and Kings in the bible had Polygamous marriages.

There is some evidence such as with David and Bathsheba that sometimes these relationships were were a form of Polygyny.

There is a general acceptance that polygamy is allowed although the old testament never actually condones it and Jesus actively condemns it. The first example of polygamy is in Genesis 4 when the Lamech, a descendent of Cain, takes two wives for himself.

Abraham, Jacob, David and Solomon all had multiple wives. However, each of them had consequences from their multiple marriages.

There was bitterness between Sarah and Hagar which led to the dismissal of Hagar and Ishmael. Rachel was jealous of Leah which led to Joseph being sold into slavery by his half-brothers. Tamar was raped by her half-brother Amnon who was killed by Tamar’s brother Absalom. Solomon was turned away from the Lord by the worship of false gods by his wives from other lands.

Ironically, the only direct command against polygamy comes in Deuteronomy 17:17 which commands kings not to multiply their wives.

Betrothal was distinct from marriage but acted like marriage

Betrothal was understood to be distinct from marriage but when a couple was betrothed then they were accountable to the laws for married couples. They were considered as if they were married because betrothal was a binding contract.

Someone who was betrothed and who had sex with someone else would be dealt with under the Law as if they had committed adultery. Betrothal meant much more to them than getting engaged does to us.

The Old Testament has some particularly uncomfortable laws about marriage which seem not only harmful but fairly horrible for us now. These examples are all from Deuteronomy 22.

A woman would have to be able to prove her virginity before marriage in case her new husband decided he didn’t like her and accused her of not being a virgin. She had to put a sheet beneath her on their wedding night so she could prove she was a virgin. Otherwise she would be killed.

If she could prove it, then the man making the accusing had to give 100 pieces of silver to the father and then he had to stay with his wife for his entire life with no divorce.

If a virgin who is betrothed is encountered by another man in a town who then has sex with her, the implication being that he rapes her, then both of them should be killed at the city gate. The young woman because she did not cry for help in a town where people could have helped her, and so the implication being that she wanted it. They both needed to be killed to purge evil from Israel.

By todays standards, this is obviously horrific and abusive. But it gets worse.

If a man meets a virgin who is not engaged and rapes her and they are caught in the act, then the man must give her father fifty pieces of silver and then she must become his wife and he will not be allowed to divorce her for the rest of his life.

A woman is forced to marry her rapist and is never allowed to leave him. Her father is paid money to cover the assault on his honour and the loss of his daughter. The rapist isn’t killed because she wasn’t engaged and so it wasn’t adultery.

For the man, Rape was little more than an abrupt form of betrothal. There is no way we could ever accept this as being acceptable today. But when we talk about biblical ideas of marriage, this is part of that story.

Biblical views of divorce in the Old Testament

There is little restriction on divorce in the Old Testament.

A husband had to write a bill of divorce and give it to his wife before sending her away (Deuteronomy 24:1-3, Isaiah 50:1, Jeremiah 3:8). A husband had to pay a settlement with the father when getting divorce. There are only two prescriptions against divorce in the Old Testament, and both examples have already been given above.

However, it seems that there was considerable social sanctions against divorce as seen in genesis 21:11-12 and 2 Samuel 3:14-16. But the law against divorce was limited to cases when the woman would really want to be able to divorce and the lack of ability to divorce was there to punish the man.

Jesus, Marriage, and Divorce

In the New Testament Jesus calls back to Genesis 2 (Matthew 19:4-6, Mark 10:7-9) saying that a man will leave his home and go to his wife and the two will become one flesh so that they should not be separated from each other.

Jesus draws on the prophetic traditions to criticise polygamy and the easy recourse to divorce in his culture and society. For Jesus, marriage was between two people who should spend the rest of their lives together.

The church has never been able to hold to that restriction. Even in the early Church, divorce was acceptable in some circumstances, although they shouldn’t remarry.

Later, some churches have accepted that whilst not ideal divorce is preferable to people living in unhappy, abusive, or harmful marriages and that once divorced they can marry again.

In Matthew 22 Jesus says that there will be no marriage in heaven. There won’t need to be any marriage because the relationships we have with one another will be different.

Marriage is about constraining sin and binding sexual relations within one couple and not with lots of different people. This doesn’t mean that we would not be with the people we love in heaven, nor that the relationships we have now would not survive into heaven (although no one really knows what heaven will be like).

To an extent, this is saying that the ideal is the possibility of faithful and attentive relationships without the need for a legally prescribed relationship.

Paul, Marriage, and Divorce

1 Corinthians 7:8 explains that a married couple should give each other their married rights for the wife has authority over the husband’s body and the husband has authority over the wife’s body. Or, that each person no longer belongs to themselves but they belong to each other.

Paul would rather everyone remain unmarried but if they cannot be self-controlled then they should marry rather than be aflame with passion. Paul provides an exception for Christians to divorce their partner if they are not Christian, but encourages them to stay together because doing so means that they make their pagan spouse holy.

Different kinds of modern marriage

Whilst others might have a small, quick ceremony at the registry officer before having a ‘proper’ wedding ceremony later on at the Army.

A simple midweek ceremony at a registry office with the couple, two witnesses, and two registrars (the minimum legal requirement, sometimes called a 2×2 wedding) can be as cheap as £50. This is more common when there are pressing reasons such as finance, or when needing to live together because of housing issues.

There is a consistent thread through scripture about marriage. There are lots of laws and examples which, by the moral standards of today and the New Testament are frankly bat-crap crazy.

But the consistent thread is that the couple is to be attentive to each other. To be helpful to each other. To care for each other and honour each other. To have responsibility for each other and to put in the effort to make it work together.

Marriage exists to prevent sin, to unite what is separate, and to create something stronger than two individuals on their own.

Marriage in Late Antiquity

Some of the earliest examples of marriage between a man and a woman dates to approximately 2350 BC in Mesopotamia.

Examples of wedding, dowry, and divorce agreements can also be found in Babylonian cuneiform tablets. Marriages seem to have been common practice amongst settled peoples, especially those who have a stable community, a structured social order, or live in urban environments.

In contrast to the contractually arranged marriages of Persia, some early nomadic communities in the ancient near east practiced a form of marriage called Beena.

This is where wives would own their own tent separate from their husband. Their tent was a space completely independent from their husband. The wives would form little communities together, where their husband had little influence. There is some suggestion that this influenced some early Israelite practices such with the example of Jael (Judges 4:7) or Jacob’s wives (Genesis 31:33-34).

In Ancient Greece there was no requirement for any formal agreement or ceremonies to form a marriage. Only stated mutual agreement between the father of the bride and the future husband was legally necessary.

When making a betrothal agreement the father would say: I pledge my daughter for the purpose of producing legitimate offspring. Women had almost no rights in a marriage.

Inheritance was central to everything in marriage.

A woman who’s father dies without male heirs could be forced to marry their nearest male relative even if that meant divorcing their husband. Both women and men were encouraged to have lovers outside of the marriage, although women were encouraged to have same-sex lovers to avoid any challenge to the legitimacy of children.

Men were just as likely to have a male lover as a female one, with male lovers being seen more as an intellectual equal or as a close friend as opposed to women.

In contrast to Ancient Greece, in Ancient Rome, marriage was far more complicated and and the social attitude towards sex was far more conservative. There were two main forms of marriage.

The traditional form called conventio in manum required a ceremony with witnesses and meant that the woman became a part of the husband’s family, giving up any right to inheritance or property from her father’s family.

The free form called sine manu meant that there was no need for a ceremony and the woman remained part of her father’s family. Again, in each case the assumed emphasis in marriage is the transfer of property, wealth, status, and political contracts.

The key part is that in each case, the wife was entirely under the authority of the husband. A woman had no legal rights of her own, barely more than a slave does. She was the property of the husband or father, and they could legally beat or kill her if they desired. Only social influence prevented this, not legal matters.

Husbands would divorce their wives to make a more favourable marriage. In alter centuries, emperors would command people to divorce in order to hurt them or because he wanted them to marry someone else.

Marriage was a contract, and love had very little to do with it. In fact, when it was discovered that a politician may have been in love with his wife, or spent too much time in their company, they were mocked for being effeminate.

Effeminacy in Rome was one of the easiest ways to lose your political privileges and social capital. Power and status lay with men. To behave like a woman was to lose that status. This underpinned the severe cultural taboos around same-sex relationships in Ancient Rome.

A man who was penetrated was viewed as effeminate, as being like a woman, and so was looked down on and cut off from society. However a man who penetrated other men was someone who was simply exercising his right to power. This was especially true with the use of young slave-boys or eunuchs who were considered feminine to begin with.

Marriage was dangerous business in Rome. It was part of the political power game for those at the top of society, and it is we a way of securing wealth, property, and sons, for those lowe down the social order. It is significant that slaves were not allowed to marry and their children belonged to their owner, not to them.

The customs of Persia, Greece, and Rome, all influenced Second-Temple Judaism and early Christianity. No less in marriage than in any other area of life.

Marriage in the Early Church

The first 300 years in the Christian period, marriage was seen as a generally private matter between two people. It had nothing to do with the state, and very little to do with the church.

In the earliest part of the period, Christians would simply aim to marry other Christians where they could, or to maintain their faith when married to pagans. As Christianity became more mainstream, then considerations around the danger of believing in Christ disappeared and the social understanding of marriage mostly mimicked whichever culture those Christians came from.

The key exceptions being around raising children, how partners should treat each other, restrictions on divorce, and extra-marital relations no longer being permission.

The urgency of Christ’s Return meant Marriage didn’t matter as much

A central part of understanding marriage in this period is grasping the sense of urgency and expectation around the return of Christ. Marriage was less about property and procreation than to control and limit sin and encourage Christian ethical behaviour. Marriage was seen as second to celibacy, something that wouldn’t change until the reformation.

There was no need to procreate when the Messiah would be returning soon. No need to form families if the world was going to end. All your energy should be given over to spreading the Gospel.

Slowly, as people realised that the second-coming wasn’t coming anytime soon, people started getting married again. Then the emphasis on celibacy as being spiritually greater began to be grounded in the first sacred virgins and then in the early monks and nuns.

Marriage and Celibacy in Conversation with Christ

As marriage started to become normal again for Christians, it still was seen only as a limit to sin, and that celibacy should be prefered. This was at least part of the reason that no ceremony was needed, two people just agreed to be married. This was challenged by the Church institutions.

An example is when Bishop Ignatius of Antioch wrote to Bishop Polycarp of Smyrna: It becomes both men and women who marry, to form their union with the approval of the bishop, that their marriage may be according to God, and not after their own lust.

The bishops wanted the Church involved in the process of marriage to make sure that the relationships were holy and weren’t just being done out of lust.

The Influence of Augustine on Christian Understand of Marriage

An important moment in the developing thinking around marriage comes from Augustine. Augustine believed that marriage was a sacrament because it represented the union between Christ and the Church. As such, marriage could be a means of grace for those who were in it.

He was partially influenced in this by his mother who was a Christian who had been married to a pagan but who understood her role as helping her husband come to faith.

Augustine also believed that if everyone stopped marrying and having children then Christ would return more quickly. Augustine saw sex as sinful, and as the way in which original sin was transmitted and which passed it onto the children who were created by sex. Augustine’s understanding of sex and the transmission of sin meant that he viewed all sexual relations, even in marriage, to be the result of lust and thus to be sinful.

Marriage limited sin by controlling the sexual behaviour of people, but it still meant that sin took place unless a married couple could be married but also chaste in their relationship. Then they would have the best of both worlds.

The wider view of marriage in the Church Fathers

The same was true for the earlier church fathers Tertullian and Gregory of Nyssa who both believed that it was better to be celibate, even in marriage. Jerome and John Chrysostom both agreed that celibacy was better than marriage and that sex in marriage should be limited to procreation to limit the sin of lust. For Cyprian, marriage was only needed to increase the population but as the world was full there wasn’t a need for anymore people and so no more need for marriage.

This view on marriage is one of the reasons why there was no formal marriage liturgy in the early Church. They used a modified version of Roman pagan marriage ceremonies. The form was basically the same with some changes made to the rituals she egucg God was being invoked.

The earliest exple of a Christian wedding liturgy comes from the 9th century. So while we know Christians got married before then, and that process was basically classically Roman, we know little more than that about what actually happened.

Marriages between Christians remained a mostly private affair. The way that marriages were formed were frequently informed by the local custom.

Marriage in the Medieval Period

The Anglo-Saxon period saw a transition in marriage. Marriage for those people living in Western Europe after the fall of Rome was mostly about forming relationships between different groups.

Stephanie Coontz writes: You established peaceful relationships, trading relationships, mutual obligations with others by marrying them. Marriage was about solidifying alliances and relationships.

Christian Understanding of Marriage from 500 to 100 AD

However, as new structured societies emerged with the Franks and the Anglo-Saxons, wealth became increasingly centralised in land owners and in the emerging aristocracy. Marriage took on a different element.

Coontz writes: That’s the period when marriage shifts and becomes a centre for intrigue and betrayal. Marriage once again became more about inheritance than about relationship, about political alliance than about romantic feelings.

Developing Christian views of marriage in the early Second Millennium

A significant change to marriage emerged in the 11th and 12th centuries. Prior to this time marriage was about creating relationships and alliances, especially amongst the wealthy but also to a lesser extent amongst the poor.

The wishes of the couple were mostly unimportant, the marriage was arranged by the parents to benefit the families. The bride in particular had no role to play; her consent was necessary, only that she obeyed her father.

However in the 12th century a monk called Gratian (a friend of this blog 🙂) changed all of that. With his organisation and regulation of cannon law Gratian made the consent of the couple, including the bride, necessary for marriage.

Bride and groom both had to give verbal consent to legitimise the marriage. People could not be forced into a marriage against their consent, technically at least. It also prevented proxy marriages where people would ‘stand in’ for someone on their wedding day because they could not be therem

This was a huge social and legal innovation, even it had little impact on the behaviour of the most powerful people in society. Women were not objects or property to be passed from father to groom. The woman had the right to refuse. If she said no, the marriage was not legal. This would not prevent people using force to compel the woman to give consent, but at least the principle was there.

To read more about Gratian and the impact of his work check out my other blog:

https://mytheologycorner.com/2024/08/08/justice-is-love-in-public/

The church starts to get involved with marriages – Into the Early Modern Period

Marriage was still a generally private affair. Marriage by common consent and witness was common, where a couple would simply say “I marry you” in front of witnesses. They then lived together and were considered to be married. They might at some point down the line have their marriage blessed by a priest, but it wasn’t necessary.

It became increasingly fashionable to have a priest bless the marriage, and then to actually perform a wedding with a liturgy. But this was still very far from what we might imagine it to be.

Prior to the 16th century people were married in the porch or the doorstep of churches as more emphasis was placed on the betrothal and marriage contract than on the actual marriage service.

The wedding was not a sacramental service and so was not performed at the Altar but at the threshold between the sacred and the secular.

Once a couple were betrothed then they were considered to be actually married. The betrothal was a solemn agreement, a binding oath, which could not lightly be broken.

In the 16th and 17th century, almost a third of all women getting married were already pregnant. This was because when a couple were betrothed they could act as if they were married already. The wedding simply finalised what had already been agreed.

Was marriage a sacrament?

As early as the 12th century the church had considered marriage to be a sacrament even if it had not officially called it one. That meant that marriage was a means of grace, something which could and would mediate God’s grace to those who participated in the ceremony.

The emphasis on celibacy as the highest ideal and the preference for Monasticism still meant that marriage was seen as spiritually second-class. Ok for those who couldn’t quite cope with staying celibate.

However it was only the effects of the Protestant reformation which led to the sacramental nature of marriage being formalised in the Roman Catholic church. Protestants tended to agree on either two (baptism and communion) or three (confession) sacraments.

They emphasised the importance of marriage as the assumed Christian vocation as opposed to celibacy, but also refused to view marriage as a sacramental process. Marriage was a sacred covenant, but only communion and baptism were able to mediate the grace of Christ to believers.

(Not every protestant group agreed on what sacraments were or what they did or whether they were even a thing at all. This is a major over simplification of a complicated topic.)

The Council of Trent in 1563 made marriage officially a sacrament in the Roman Catholic Church. This led to marriages being carried out inside the church at the Altar and generally were fine as part of a Mass.

The Council of Trent was a reaction to the reformation and was part of the Counter-Reformation. The council codified into official teaching lots of assumptions that had been made over the last five hundred years since the reforms of Pope Gregory VII.

Elizabeth Davies writes: There was an underlying assumption that marriage was a sacrament, but it was clearly defined in 1563 because of the need to challenge teaching that suggested it wasn’t. With the Reformation, lines were drawn about what marriage was.

Marriage in the Reformation

The Protestant reformation made formal the wedding vows which are still generally used today.

First set out in the 1549 Book of Common prayer, put together by Archbishop Cranmer, the wedding vows are still largely unchanged today. Cranmer took the vows already used in Catholic services and included them in the Protestant service with some slight changes. The same liturgy which could trace it’s roots back to the 9th and 10th centuries.

The biggest difference being the entire service was now in English rather than in Latin with just the vows being in English. Duncan Dormer writes: All the things that you think of, ‘to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer’, all of that stuff comes from that point.

People became more likely to have a wedding in a church when they could understand what was going on. Also, as the Reformation gave increasing agency to people over their own faith and religious practices, they were more likely to want to express those beliefs together in public.

Key to the changing view of marriage is the move from the Roman Catholic emphasis on the religious life of celibate monks and nuns as superior to all other forms of following Jesus to the emphasis being on the family in Protestant Christianity.

Marriage became a vocation, a way of mimicking the Kingdom of God on Earth. Marriage became better than celibacy.

The generally assumed belief that period married at a young age in pre-modern times is untrue. As personal consent became increasingly important in Western Christianity where Celtic and Germanic traditions were merged with Roman culture, so too did the age at which people got married became more variable.

Most people would marry in their twenties, some woman with an independent income did not marry until their thirties or forties, especially in urban environments. Of course, this was different for the wealthy and the aristocracy who would get married at a younger age. Evidence suggests that the age of marriage went down during times of plague or hardship and went up during times of plenty.

Marriage in the Early Modern Period

The Clandestine Marriage Act of 1753 was the start of the state’s involvement in marriage following the period of the middle and early modern ages. Up until this point marriage by consent and cohabitation was legal and valid.

The Act required individuals to get married in a registered church or chapel and the service be done by a licensed minister otherwise the marriage was void. This was at least partially a response to the consequences of the English civil war and the rise in non-conformist sects.

Church and State Work Together to Define Marriage

The Act signaled the end of common law marriages. It also required a couple to give a formal announcement, usually through the parish church, of their intention to marry called Banns, or they could pay for a marriage licence.

Most couples were already doing this as it was a requirement of cannon law, but now there were legal implications for not doing so. Carol Smart writes: You’ve got these parallel strands going on of the secular and the religious sides, and that clearly hasn’t gone away.

Secular and sacred were coming together in legally binding requirements for marriage.

In the 18th century with the rise of the middle classes and the moneyed gentry, the importance of marriage grew. The state took ownership. Probert writes: You can see it as the state increasing its control – this is almost too important just to leave to canon law, this needs a statute scheme and specific penalties if you don’t comply…[It] put the formalities required for a valid marriage on a statutory footing for the first time. Marriage became more closely regulated as it became more socially important.

Marriage in the Victorian Era

The Marriage Act of 1836 established the legality of civil marriages.

A couple could get married in a registry office with an official as a witness. Registry offices were set up in towns across England and Wales. Up until this point all marriages had been done either in a Church of England church or, in the lone exception, in a Quaker chapel.

This Act meant that not only could people get married in a registry office if they were not religious, but also people who weren’t Anglican like Baptists, Methodists, or Jews, could get married outside of an Anglican church. It was also much cheaper than a Church wedding.

This is the embedding of the possibility of a secular marriage. That marriage did not have to be a sacred thing but was primarily considered a legal thing. An agreement between two people. Legalised and recognised by the State and not by the Church. Marriage could be a contract, not a covenant.

The Victorian period did not introduce but did popularise the idea that marriage should be for love. Whilst people in the poorer levels of society had frequently tender to marry based on love, wealthier people had persisted in mostly marrying for advantage.

Jennifer Phegley writes: The Victorians were really, really invested in the idea of love – that marriage should actually be based on love or companionship.

With new money, the rise of the middle classes – especially industrialist philanthropists – and increasing social mobility, families were moving away from seeing marriage as a way to solidify a political position or secure a financially suitable wife.

Instead marriage was an opportunity for love and companionship – although there still remained the necessity for the wealthy and powerful to marry the ‘right person’ there was also the hope that love would grow in that relationship.

In the history of marriage, this was quite a radical break from traditional expectations. It perhaps wouldn’t have gained the traction it did without the example of Victoria and Albert. Despite marrying for bloodlines, Victoria described her marriage as a love match and her highly visible demonstration of mourning solidified this example.

Phegley writes: If you read her letters and her diaries, she’s very effusive about how in love with him she was, and this sort of filtered down into society.

Marriage became about the white dress, she being happy together, about being in love and enjoying sex.

Marriage and Divorce

Divorce is a key element to consider in the purpose of marriage.

Before 1858, divorce was rare in the UK. In 1670 parliament passed an act to allow Lord Roos to divorce his wife on grounds of his wife’s adultery. This set a precedent for over 300 divorces between the 17th and 19th centuries all by act of parliament. Before this time divorce was very difficult to get and required a lot of money.

There are examples of wife auctions or sales in some parts of the UK from the early modern period into the early industrial era where people who couldn’t afford a divorce would take their wife and sell them to someone else who wanted them. Whilst it was illegal, it was also overlooked.

In 1858 it became possible to divorce through legal proceedings but this was generally too expensive for most people, carried a large amount of social stigma, and it was almost impossible for the wife to successfully bring a case for divorce as she had to prove aggravated adultery not just regular adultery.

As such, divorce cases were still quite rare and limited to those with something to gain from formally ending a marriage. Most divorces were undertaken on the grounds of criminal conversation, the polite way of talking about adultery.

The Divorce Reform Act of 1969 meant that a couple could divorce on the grounds of relationship breakdown and not only adultery, abandonment, or withholding the rights of marriage.

Bren Neale writes: The divorce law meant that people trapped in bad marriages need not stay in them forever. The assumption moved from marriage as a lifelong commitment no matter what, to a relationship of mutual and individual fulfilment and happiness.

Marriage became something held together by ongoing mutual consent and not by unbreakable oaths. Divorce was easier, cheaper, and more readily available, and the social stigma for being divorced was reduced. Churches began to accept people who were divorced into their congregations and to let divorced people marry again.

Historically one of the main reasons for marriage was procreation. That was central to both Roman Catholic and Anglican teaching.

But with the increase in the number of children surviving infancy and thus the size of families booming, the late 19th century saw a commensurate increase in the use of types of artificial birth control. The link between procreation and marriage starts to be separated.

Dormer writes: Before, if you’re married, you have a sexual relationship, and you have kids. The idea that you would do something to stop yourself from having kids within a marriage doesn’t seem to be part of the mental landscape, but in the last few decades [of the 19th Century] it’s quite clear that things are changing.

Sex can be about more than children, and marriages can be about more than inheritance.

Marriage in the Modern Age

In the 1930s the Anglicans accepted the use of artificial contraception when there was: clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood.

This formally accepted what had begun to be common practice. Especially as condoms became more readily available, more effective, and were found to prevent many sexually transmitted diseases when used correctly. For some, birth control would only increase promiscuity. For others, it gave couples – and especially women – control over whether they wanted children or not.

The purpose of marriage was not just about procreation. For many, that was part of the deal but was not the primary intention. Marriage became about the loving relationship, and commitment to one another. For some impatient conservative Christian teens, it was also about being able to finally have sex.

The ending of betrothals as binding and the movement of emphasis onto wedding ceremonies as the entire thing which made a person married meant that the prohibition on married people having sex outside of their marriage, to people not being allowed to have sex unless they were married first.

As people felt it less necessary to wait until marriage to have sex, it meant that marriage became something people did later in life.

The introduction of civil partnerships continued to change the landscape, building on what had already begun the Marriage Act of 1836.

In a time where people were increasingly irreligious, or where people could not readily afford church weddings, or where there were more people with other religious beliefs, registry officer weddings became more popular and more socially acceptable. They were no longer seen as a second class wedding and became an acceptable alternative. With some having a registry officer wedding and then a church wedding at a later date.

In 2005 civil partnerships were introduced in the UK for same-sex couples. Meg Munn, the then minister for equality said: It accords people in same-sex relationships the same sort of rights and responsibilities that are available to married couples. Same-sex marriage became legal in 2014.

From 2019 civil partnerships were extended to opposite-sex couples as well as same-sex couples. This gave an alternative for couples who wanted to formalise their relationship without entering a marriage.

Same-sex couples can convert a civil partnership to a marriage at a later date. To see the differences between civil partnerships and marriages this link is helpful:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/marriage-and-civil-partnership-in-england-and-wales/marriage-and-civil-partnership-in-england-and-wales-accessible-version

Marriage and the Oppression of Women

Marriage has frequently been used to oppress and control women.

An example comes from 1777 where the wealthy but single 27 year old Mary Bowes was tricked into marrying a man who seemed to be on his deathbed but then recovered and gambled all of her money while effectively keeping her prisoner.

He refused to let her see her children or meet with friends. After 8 years her servants helped her escape but her husband used her money to pay for a divorce and, under the Law, her children belonged to her husband and not to her.

Lennon writes: Her servants gave her money to escape. And then when she was trying to legally escape, of course it was all of her money that paid his legal fees, and, ultimately, she didn’t have access to her children.

A key part of the oppression of women in marriage was through control of their children. In 1877 Annie Besant was found unfit to be a parent and had her children removed because she gave information on contraception to married women.

In 1783 Mary Wollstonecraft visited her sister Eliza who had just had a baby. Eliza was going through what we would know as post-partum depression. Mary suspected that Eliza’s husband was physically and sexually abusing her. When Mary took her sister away she was legally obliged to leave the baby behind. The baby died before it’s first birthday. Mary was convinced that the father had neglected it in revenge for Eliza leaving.

This had a huge impact on Mary Wollstonecraft who went on to campaign against the abuse of women in marriage.

Lennon writes: That story massively shaped Wollstonecraft’s view on marriage – she went on to write incredibly influential tracts on gender equality and marriage and what she called the ‘divine right of husbands’. So these are stories of progress through suffering.

An interesting modern development is the growth of the ‘tradwife’ movement. Especially strong on social media platforms such as TikTok and drawing it’s imaginative imagery from false images of 19th century or early 20th century marriages, they seek to return to a more traditional form of marriage. Mostly white and middle class, they exert the privilege of their position in their idealisation of a problematic perspective.

Lennon writes on the issue: They’re saying that’s the traditional way to be a wife, and that is desirable, and how life should be. They’re really closely connected to things like white supremacy and other dark elements of politics in the UK and US, based on this very narrow idea that doesn’t reflect the history.

Lennon argues that the way in which 1950s households have been idealised shows a lack of understanding for the  history of marriage in that period. After the Second World there was a push to get women out of the workforce and back into the home to make space for returning service men to go back into work.

Lennon writes about this image of a housewife: It’s a very constructed idea, like the Victorian angel in the house. Most women worked in Victorian times and, across the Empire, women of colour weren’t living any of these ideas. So they’re profiting from that lack of awareness of this history, and saying this is the traditional way.

A key fact to consider in the ongoing relationship between marriage and equality is that 90% of women who get married still give up their name. The assumption is that the identity of the woman is subsumed into the identity of the man – she becomes part of his family.

This can have an impact on careers, with a change of name comes a disruption in recognition between the old name and the new, especially if the woman has published anything under her old name.

Further consider that in many weddings it is the woman who walks down the aisle, the father gives her away to the husband, and then at the reception the wife rarely makes a speech. It may just be tradition, but it speaks to an underlying misogyny leftover in our understanding of weddings and marriages.

This can be seen in the Church in two ways which the married relationship is understood. Egalitarianism, or Complementarianism.

Christian Egalitarian is an understanding of marriage which holds men and women to be completely equal. There are no specific gender roles but rather each relationship is unique and able to work out how the couple work together. It is generally grounded in Galatians 3:28 that there is neither male nor female in Christ. Mutual consent and love is central to everything in the marriage.

Christian Complementarian holds that there are distinct gender roles in the marriage. There is a spectrum ranging from male and female are equal but have naturally different roles to play, to male headship and female submission. It generally draws from Ephesians 5:22 and what I would consider to be a flawed reading of that text.

Complementarian relationships are linked to the tradwife movement in the modern zeitgeist. It tends to go with denominations or independent churches which emphasise male ministry and leadership and have distinct gender roles in their membership.

Modern Salvationist Context of Marriage in the UK

At the moment there are two representatives of The Salvation Army who are able to perform wedding ceremonies. These are officers and territorial envoys.

Officers can perform weddings because they are ordained ministers of religion, although in England, Wales, and Northern Island they require a registrar present for that marriage to be legal. In Scotland there is no need for a registrar since a denomination can decide who is authorised to officiate weddings.

Territorial envoys are not ordained but are commissioned in their role like a local officer or divisional envoy. They can only perform weddings after completing additional training in how to undertake weddings and, in Scotland, TEs can be authorised to perform weddings by The Salvation Army.

Although there is a distinction between officers and envoys where one is ordained and the other isn’t, this does not prevent envoys from officiating at wedding ceremonies. Although they do need further training to do so.

The Army has it’s own forms of liturgy for wedding ceremonies. There are forms for general members and then a different one for soldiers. There are options regarding language and structure whether the person wants a more formal or traditional ceremony or a more modern and equal ceremony.

At the moment the Army in the UK does not have a policy or positional statement about marriage. However some general positions can be noted. The Salvation Army believes that sex should be confined to marriage and that couples ideally should not live together before they are married.

Marriage is understood as a covenant made between two people with promises made to each other and to God. The officer or envoy acts on behalf of the Army and of God when they proclaim that the couple are married.

But what does the Army actually think about marriage? Is marriage something sacred or is it something which is a legal contract between two people.

Sacred or Secular?

Without a positional statement on marriage (in the UK), or a clear theological statement on marriage (that I have been able to find anyway) the starting point is to look at what the Army actually does.

A central point is that an Army marriage is only legally a marriage when a registrar is present and performed at a registered location, or when performed by an agreed person in Scotland. Without that element, without the legal words being said and the legal requirements being fulfilled, the marriage is not legal.

There are two distinct elements to a wedding. The legal bit and the religious bit. They are not the same thing, although they often occur in the same ceremony. There is nothing particularly controversial about this. What becomes complicated is when you have these two parts at separate times.

A couple who get married in a registry office with a civil ceremony will still be recognised as married by the Army, even if they have not had a religious service. They are legally married. They may go onto have an Army wedding afterwards. That is frequently encouraged. But it is not necessary.

Sometimes, rather than a second wedding ceremony taking place, the couple will have their marriage blessed. There is no official liturgy for that practice, but a ceremony can be created similar to a renewal of vows. It provides an opportunity for those who have had a civil wedding to add some religious elements to it without having to have an entire ceremony all over again.

The Army accepts a legal wedding as enough. A couple is married. They can have a religious wedding if they want, or have their vows blessed, but it’s not necessary. The question that arises from this is whether a religious wedding on its own would be recognised as a marriage by the Army.

Currently, for a couple to enter officer training together, they must be legally married. Marriage is equated to legal marriage. This puts the emphasis on marriage as a legal relationship. It is the legal part of the wedding that is required and necessary.

For soldiers to live together and have a sexual relationship, they need to be married. Given the requirements for candidacy, the inference is a legal marriage.

It seems that the religious elements of marriage are less important than the legal elements. A person who is not legally married is not considered married. A religious ceremony is not enough to qualify a person as married. They need to be legally married as well.

This is the inheritance of two thousand years of development from marriage as two people making promises to each other with their witnesses, to two people making promises to each other which the Church then recognises, to weddings only being legal in an Anglican church, to civil weddings being possible for those who did not want an Anglican wedding. This is the key moment which has led to this point.

As a church in the dissenting tradition, Salvationists are exactly the kind of people that civil services were invented for. Because of the role of the established church, only the Church of England or an agent or the state can perform legally binding marriages.

Before 1753, the state didn’t really have anything to do with marriage. Afterwards, marriage became a legaly binding matter. Once the state becomes involved in weddings, the difference between a legal and a religious wedding is introduced. Civil ceremonies were introduced for people who didn’t want an Anglican service, whether atheists or from other denominations or religions.

It is because of the established church, the consequences of the English Civil War, and the involvement of the state in weddings, that the difference between legal or religious marriages exist. It is the reason why the Army requires legal marriages for some of these issues.

But there is a degree to which this takes away from marriage, from the way it has historically been understood, and the Christian understanding of a marriage being more than a legal contract.

If only the legal bit is necessary, then should the Army do weddings still? If the religious bit is important, then why isn’t it recognised by the Army separately to the legal bit?

If the Army did recognise a religious wedding separately to a legal wedding, then the next question is what actually happens during the wedding ceremony? Is it the exchanging of vows which make a couple married, is it when the celebrant says that they pronounce or declare the couple to married, or is it a combination?

I’m going to try and answer some of those questions in the next section.

Should The Army Still Do Marriage Ceremonies?

I do not think the Army should ‘do’ weddings anymore. I’ll explain why here.

1st. There is a difference between a legal marriage and a religious marriage. Religious marriage is preferable.

A legal marriage is a legal contract agreed between two people. It provides financial benefits and legal rights for that couple. As a legal contract it requires legal action to break that contract. Anyone who is eligible can have a legal marriage. Eligible Salvationists should be supported and encouraged to become legally married as cheaply and simply as possible.

A religious marriage is a covent between the people and God. They make a covenant promise to each other. This covenant is made through the Holy Spirit which makes self-sacrificial love possible. Covenantal marriage is superior to a legal marriage. A religious marriage should be the assumed necessity for a married couple rather than a legal marriage.

2nd. The ceremony is not the marriage. The minister does not marry the couple.

The marriage is the union of two people. They make covenant promises to each other in front of witnesses. This is what makes them married. This could happen anywhere and be witnessed by anyone. They do not need a celebrant or a ceremony. God is the celebrant, the one who seals the covenantal promises between the people. The minister does not marry the couple, the ceremony does not create a marriage between two people.

3rd. The ceremony provides recognition and the minister offers the blessing of the Church.

The wedding ceremony provides public recognition of the marriage vows between the couple. The church and congregation acts as witnesses and prays for the couple. There is a shared unity of purpose, gathering around the couple. There is a recognition that the union of two people in marriage is part of the way in which humanity is able to love and care for each other. The couple is part of something greater than themselves and the Church acts as a reminder and support for the couple of the promises they have made. The rituals of the wedding ceremony provide a way for a couple to mark an important transition in their life. It does not create a marriage, it celebrates and recognises a marriage.

The minister acts on behalf of the Church to bless the marriage. They do not perform the marriage. They provide vows to be used which are used by others. The shared vows, used by millions of couples, demonstrates a shared understanding of marriage which helps bring people together. It is a reminder that the marriage of the couple is part of something older and greater than themselves. The minister represents that tradition. They stand as a reminder of the historic Christian tradition, of the support being given, and to the nature of marriage as a covenant. They do not make the marriage happen through the words that they say. They recognise what has already happened in the promises the two people make.

4th. The Army does not do sacraments. A wedding does not cause a change.

The Army does not believe that a ceremony or ritual can cause a spiritual change in a person. What matters takes place in the life of the believer. Ceremonies recognise those changes that have already happened in the person’s life. The wedding ceremony cannot create a marriage anymore than baptism can create salvation. Rather, it recognises what has already taken place by the person and the work of the Holy Spirit.

5th. The ceremony and the minister help to prevent abuse

The use of church ceremonies and the celebration of the rites by a minister help to prevent abuse. Whilst it is true that a marriage would be valid if two people made covenantal promises to each other in the presence of witnesses, the way in which that can be abused is curtailed by the preferment for official ceremonies. It is harder to go back on a promise when there are lots of people who have watched it. It is harder to compel someone to make those promises when it will be official recognised and witnessed.

6th. The Salvation Army Blesses What God Has Done

The couple decides to get married. They will make covenantal promises to each other. This is preferably done as part of an Army ceremony but it is not necessary. The ceremony recognises what is happening. The use of ritual words and formulas provides a sense of wider belonging, continuity, and shared commitment to relationships. On behalf of the Army the minister offers a blessing and recognition of the promises that have been made by the couple, reminding them that their promises were made not just to each other but to God as well.

Conclusion

These ideas I have offered are something that I hope will stir up thoughts and discussion about what marriage is and the way that Army understands marriage. I believe that it is in keeping with Salvationist theology to emphasise the personal commitment of two people to each other and to God rather than emphasising the role of the church or the minister in creating something.

There is perhaps the possibility that this will start to change the way we have conversations about what marriage is. If nothing else, maybe the historical elements will produce more informed debate about what marriage is and how the Army should understand it.

If you want to keep up to date, sign up to My Theology Corner Newsletter for a weekly lite-bite theology hit. Get short-form reflections from topics on the main blog and or on other interesting topics from that week.

https://chrisbutton.substack.com