The term “human sexuality” is often used to characterize the debate before us. This strikes me as a bit disingenuous. It seems that we are so focused on one dimension of human sexuality, that we actually neglect our calling to be pastoral and prophetic in many dimensions of human sexuality — marriage, divorce, singleness, equality, roles, expectations, abuse, exploitation, and words in the lists in scripture like fornication and adultery. I want to explore Wesley’s guidance on some of these issues as they relate to our big debate — specifically looking at the purpose of marriage, the reasons for prohibitions on divorce, and the call to singleness.
First marriage. What is the purpose of marriage? In Wesley’s commentary on the scriptures, he gives two purposes. In the context of Jesus’ teaching in Luke 20, Wesley speaks of the need for marriage because we are subject to “the law of mortality,” and “the species is in need of continuous repair.” Thus, the first purpose of marriage is reproduction or the “repairing” of the species.
The second reason for marriage is found in Wesley’s commentary on I Thess 4:4, and moves us to think about social and spiritual “repairing.” Wesley says, “marriage is not designed to inflame, but to conquer, natural desires.” Marriage is given to “further holiness.” In other words, marriage is an institution where we can cultivate the virtues of holiness – patience, gentleness, humility, self-control, peace, and joy. To bear these fruits, much attention and intentionality is needed.
While Wesley does not comment on it, there is another reason for marriage in the scriptures. The Apostle Paul says that we should marry if we cannot control ourselves. He says that it is better to marry than to “burn with lust” (I Cor 7:8-9). Being consumed with passion, where we begin to see others as objects for our pleasure, is not good for the soul or society. (A biblical word for this is “pornia,” usually translated as “fornication.” Wesley uses this term in a much broader, and more inclusive, way than we see elsewhere).
These “reasons” call for several thoughtful and serious questions. How is marriage good for souls and for society as a whole? Is it possible that other types of unions, beyond traditional views of marriage, could foster true holiness as described by Wesley? What if the church promoted a strong ethic of monogamy, commitment, faithfulness, and intentional growth in the virtues of faith for all? Given the moral choice, is it better to be in a relationship where this is possible, or to be told that “burning in lust” is the only option from the church? Is it possible to reserve the term marriage for traditional purposes, and to still bless other kinds of unions?
What about divorce? Relying on scripture, Wesley holds the church to a high standard, and “ministers” to a higher standard. He makes it clear that the prohibitions apply equally to women and to men and speaks against the law that allowed men to write a divorce decree “on any trifling occasion.” He speaks strongly against the notion of “putting away” a wife to pursuit other desires. He makes no exceptions accept for adultery. He speaks of marriage as one man and one woman, and the two becoming “one flesh.” Every time this is mentioned, Wesley makes the connection with the church’s stance against polygamy and divorce. Such unions of commitment and faithfulness help society guard against these two ills. From Wesley’s perspective, that is the value behind promoting strong commitment.
As a pastor, I must acknowledge that I have supported many people through divorces. I have sought the grace to discern circumstances in individual cases, to offer forgiveness, and to affirm the possiblity for new beginnings. I have also tried to be responsive to the fact that divorce often leaves others hurt and broken. My experience is that it is never one sided. With that said, I feel that the church has become lax on this issue. There is little stigma. Even pastors can be divorced and remarried multiple times, with no explanation needed, and continue to serve in leadership. Often, we even celebrate it.
If we err on the side of grace in divorce, it begs the question: Could we give this same grace to others seeking to live in faithful, covenant relationships and to grow in God’s love? Why would we withhold that from them and turn them away from the church?
Singleness? In the scriptures singleness is seen as a gift given from God. With this understanding, the question becomes: can singleness then be imposed on people as an expectation of the church? Wesley provides some commentary on Matthew 19:12 where, in the context of teaching on marriage, Jesus speaks of eunuchs who choose singleness. Jesus says that some eunuchs are made this way, some are born this way, and some choose this way. Wesley points out that it is not for everyone, but “only for those few who are able to receive the gift.” In his commentary on I Cor 7:7 he joins with Paul in wishing that all unmarried “men” would “remain eunuchs for the kingdom,” but acknowledges that all are not gifted in this way. Throughout history the word “eunuch” has been used as a euphemism for those we might call “gay” today. Wesley hints at this himself in his commentary on Acts 10:27 and Daniel 1:3 by telling us that we cannot always take the term “eunuch” literally. There was a time when eunuchs – understood literally or as a euphemism – were put into the same category as gentiles and foreigners. They were not admitted to worship or into the congregation. In the New Testament we see this barrier broken. It begs the question, are there any implications of this issue for our current debate?
Do these understanding of marriage, divorce, and singleness inform our current debate? One way to make some connection is to note the progression in the scriptures towards a more restrictive view of sexuality, especially in matters of monogamy, divorce, and abuse. This progression comes out of a growing need to protect women and children and provide a secure environment for them. Is it possible for us to apply this principle to the debate before us? Could we promote a healthy sexual ethic that applies to all, rather than expecting some to live by a higher standard while becoming more lax with others – with divorce for example? Could we move towards acceptance of people, while at the same time, promote a more restrictive sexual ethic -promoting monogamy, commitment, and faithfulness, with lots of forgiveness and grace as well? Could that be a part of our way forward?
2 thoughts on “Wesley on Marriage, Divorce, and Singleness (Part four in a series on Wesley and the Way Forward)”
Interesting. My only comment has to do with grammar and spelling. You need to proofread your articles because there are many spelling and grammatical errors in this one alone.
Thank you. I did publish this too hastily. I must be more careful.