An interesting concept that is making headway for quite some time now is the concept of “traditional family”. What exactly is traditional about the family as known in the west is beyond me. Its origins are as recent as the Middle Ages when it was instrumental in undermining the traditional (i. e. feudal) order. This is one of the aspects of the modern “traditional” family that is lost in the contemporary debate, because the liberal side has every interest to keep the “traditional” label for institutions that it considers antiquated, while the conservatives are so hooked on an artificial ideological construct that they would not see beyond it even hit between the eyes with some historical facts. Facts like the following: the western concept of family, after the advent of Christianity – and because of it – is a fundamentally libertarian institution.
The traditional family, as known to mankind all over the world in various premodern cultures, has been washed away during the course of the Middle Ages in an effort of the Church to integrate it into its area of responsibilities. The main idea promoted by the ecclesiastical authorities was that marriage is a voluntary union between a man and a woman, both conscious about their responsibilities and explicitly willing to accept and follow them. The family seems to be the first institution that was redefined along the libertarian lines of individual responsibility and free association. And when the idea of individual responsibility (/freedom) began its march through the western world there was no going back and classical liberalism harvested the results with its ideal of putting the free/responsible individual in the center of its preoccupation to clear the way for capitalism.
Such an idea of marriage and family blows directly in the face of everything traditional. Conservatives who want to invoke the coercive power of the modern state in favor of the traditional family are doing a lousy job defending the Christian idea of marriage. An institution that is based on the free consent of two adults of opposite sex can only give way to new forms of free associations between consenting adults. Once free consent (in front of the priest and the congregation) has been successfully introduced to put an end to the traditional concept of marriage as a clan event decided by the families of the bride and the groom, the trend has been set.
Moreover, there is something about the western theology of sacramental marriage that is alien to eastern (Greek-Orthodox) Christianity and is relevant to our topic: and that is the issue of the minister of the sacrament. For western Christianity the one who marries the young couple is not the priest as in the Eastern Church but the two marries each other. Much less is the head of either family clan. The decision pertains to those who are marrying and no relative, priest or state official is to do a damn thing about that. The priest’s presence is requested by canon law for the simple reason that he represents the community and as such will witness the event. But, according to the theology of the sacrament of marriage it is not through him that God bestows His grace upon the newly wed (a sacrament being nothing else than a visible sign of an invisible grace – as the textbooks teach). On the contrary, as ministers of the sacrament to each other, it is through each other that they receive the necessary grace to validate the marriage. The only thing that binds them is their free will. If this is not libertarianism at its best, I don’t know what is.
Such a novelty in the history of humanity could not avoid having a revolutionary effect that spread slowly to other institutions of the traditional society disintegrating them only to have them recomposed along the lines given by the request of free individual choice. Almost every civil institution, from parliaments to presidency and local governments of every shape and color are offshoots of some medieval civil institution, reformed relatively recently to suit modern political needs or ideologies.
The great change that “subverted” marriage was the introduction of free individual decision at the base of the whole enterprise, and nothing is going to change that. Some may lament this (I certainly do not, though I may or may not like the way some will make use of their freedom to choose), but there is nothing to be done about it anymore. What is interesting to see in this debate is the Christian groups taking up the role of defenders of traditional family. One has to wander: which traditional family? Which tradition? The Christian one? Well, it was Christianity, in the first place, that threw away the (really) traditional family ties. And rightly so, I might add.
The traditional family, as known to mankind all over the world in various premodern cultures, has been washed away during the course of the Middle Ages in an effort of the Church to integrate it into its area of responsibilities. The main idea promoted by the ecclesiastical authorities was that marriage is a voluntary union between a man and a woman, both conscious about their responsibilities and explicitly willing to accept and follow them. The family seems to be the first institution that was redefined along the libertarian lines of individual responsibility and free association. And when the idea of individual responsibility (/freedom) began its march through the western world there was no going back and classical liberalism harvested the results with its ideal of putting the free/responsible individual in the center of its preoccupation to clear the way for capitalism.
Such an idea of marriage and family blows directly in the face of everything traditional. Conservatives who want to invoke the coercive power of the modern state in favor of the traditional family are doing a lousy job defending the Christian idea of marriage. An institution that is based on the free consent of two adults of opposite sex can only give way to new forms of free associations between consenting adults. Once free consent (in front of the priest and the congregation) has been successfully introduced to put an end to the traditional concept of marriage as a clan event decided by the families of the bride and the groom, the trend has been set.
Moreover, there is something about the western theology of sacramental marriage that is alien to eastern (Greek-Orthodox) Christianity and is relevant to our topic: and that is the issue of the minister of the sacrament. For western Christianity the one who marries the young couple is not the priest as in the Eastern Church but the two marries each other. Much less is the head of either family clan. The decision pertains to those who are marrying and no relative, priest or state official is to do a damn thing about that. The priest’s presence is requested by canon law for the simple reason that he represents the community and as such will witness the event. But, according to the theology of the sacrament of marriage it is not through him that God bestows His grace upon the newly wed (a sacrament being nothing else than a visible sign of an invisible grace – as the textbooks teach). On the contrary, as ministers of the sacrament to each other, it is through each other that they receive the necessary grace to validate the marriage. The only thing that binds them is their free will. If this is not libertarianism at its best, I don’t know what is.
Such a novelty in the history of humanity could not avoid having a revolutionary effect that spread slowly to other institutions of the traditional society disintegrating them only to have them recomposed along the lines given by the request of free individual choice. Almost every civil institution, from parliaments to presidency and local governments of every shape and color are offshoots of some medieval civil institution, reformed relatively recently to suit modern political needs or ideologies.
The great change that “subverted” marriage was the introduction of free individual decision at the base of the whole enterprise, and nothing is going to change that. Some may lament this (I certainly do not, though I may or may not like the way some will make use of their freedom to choose), but there is nothing to be done about it anymore. What is interesting to see in this debate is the Christian groups taking up the role of defenders of traditional family. One has to wander: which traditional family? Which tradition? The Christian one? Well, it was Christianity, in the first place, that threw away the (really) traditional family ties. And rightly so, I might add.
No comments:
Post a Comment