The topic traversing the world of theoblogians this week is Sex and Human-ness; Ben Myers, Halden, Brett Stroud, and Jason Goroncy all have written on the subject; all of it has been quite interesting. However, the truth is the whole bunch of them are a lot more educated than I, and I doubt I have much new to say on the matter. Jason, however, linked to a previous post of his – a large quotation from Stanley Hauerwas’ Sex and Politics.

Christians should see that the family cannot, contrary to [Bertrand] Russell’s claim, exist as an end in itself…

This poses a question that I haven’t been able to articulate an answer to: What is the family a means to, in the life of a Christian? That is, what is the purpose of family?

This is something that strikes me to the core, as family, to me, has always been an end in itself. But the question is valid: God does nothing without reason, so why marriage?

In the past one answer I’ve given was sociological rather than theological; God designed marriage with the purpose of inhibiting violence. Basically, sexual rivalry is one of the strongest causes of violence; marriage attempts to even out distribution of sexual partners, hence reducing violence for these reasons. Marriages occur for these reasons both at implicit and overt levels, for example in political marriages for alliances between families. However, as much as I appreciate God’s social ethic, it’s not an answer that satisfies theologically or personally.

Hauerwas suggests that marriage itself is more basic than the interpersonal relationships that characterise a particular marriage; that is, marriage is not love itself, but a stage upon which we might act in a loving way. After all, the command that married couples love one another requires that love not be the only basis of marriage. To Hauerwas, the purpose of marriage is to teach us how to love.

I find that moderately satisfying, but the truth is (hence the title of the essay, ‘Sex and Politics’) that Hauerwas tends toward the sociological answer himself. I have to take him out of context to appreciate what he has to say. It makes me wonder about alternatives. Does anyone know of any other suggestions regarding God’s purpose in marriage?

Update: Brett Stroud seems to agree with Hauerwas – “People (often) put too much faith in marriage. It is seen as an end in itself rather than as a means of discipleship in love. It cannot solve problems, in fact it often creates them. It is a means of learning how to love, which involves the need to learn.” Is this a common understanding?