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 Academic
An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc
 Bloomsbury T&T Clark
An imprint of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

50 Bedford Square 1385 Broadway

London New York
WC1B 3DP NY 10018
UK USA

www.bloomsbury.com

BLOOMSBURY and the Diana logo are trademarks of Bloomsbury Publishing Plc

First published 2015

© 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: 978-0-5676-5696-4

ePDF: 978-0-5676-5697-1
ePUB: 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

 Contents

Editor’s Preface vii

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

Part 1 1

1 The Synoptic Gospels and Family: Fundaments to Restore Its

Deteriorated Values Daniel Alberto Ayuch 3

2 Pauline Guidelines on Christian Families in the Greco-Roman

Social Environment Mato Zovkić 17

3 The Christian Family according to the Sacred Canons of the

Orthodox Church. Orthodox aspects vis-à-vis modern Greek
legislation Elena Giannakopoulou 41

4 Glimpses into the Cappadocian Fourth-Century Family by Gregory

the Theologian Pablo Argárate 55

5 The Christian Family and its Problems in the Light of St Basil the
Great’s Canons—a Pastoral Approach Viorel Sava 65

Part 2 79

6 The Plan of God for Marriage and the Family. A Roman-Catholic

Perspective Jose R. Villar 81

7 Marriage in the Catholic Church and the Problems of

Interdenominational Families Przemyslaw Kantyka 93

8 Family between Tradition/Traditions and Contemporary Life

in Orthodox Spirituality (With Some References to St John
Chrysostom) Nicu Dumitrașcu 101

9 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 241
Bibliography 249
Index of Names 265
Index of Subjects 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 techno-
logical 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, respon-
sibility 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 provi-
sions 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

1
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.
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 under-
standing 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
4

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.
 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,

5
Mt. 6.24; Mt. 8.21–2; Mt. 22.21.
6
Mt. 10. 35–7; 12.49–50; 19.29; 23.9.
7
Mt. 19.29. One notes that the relationship with one’s wife has been omitted from this list.
8
“Thus the last shall be first and the first last.”
9
If one needs to produce a sitz im leben for the renunciatory discourses.
10
Mt. 6.10; Mt. 6.33; Mt. 22.37–40.
 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 eschato-
logical 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 late-
first-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 provoc-
atively 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

14
“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.
xx Introduction

Kingdom’s advent is tantamount to a refusal of the divine message of the resto-

ration 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 disap-
pointment (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.

18

Mt. 7.24–6; Lk. 11.28; Mk

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

20
Jn 2.1–11.
21
Jn 2.3.
22
See, for example, Jn 7.30; 8.20; 12.23–7; 13.1; 17.1.
23
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 reconcili-
ation 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 psycho-
physical 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
25

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.”
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 recip-
rocated, 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 self-
giving 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.
27

Jn 13.34; 15.12.
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 encour-
agement 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 sacramen-
tality 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
29

by many subsequent ascetical writers.

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.
4 Christian Family and Contemporary Society

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, cohabi-
tation, 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 instruc-
tions 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 The Fourth Cycle: the Institution of Christian Community

16.13–17.27 Peter’s Profession of Faith (narrative form)
18.1–35 The Ecclesiastical Sermon (rhetorical form)
19.1–20.28 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

1
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.
2
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.
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 forni-
cation: 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

4
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.
 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 uncondi-
tionally. 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

9
“And for this reason I gave them laws that were not good and judgments by which they could never
live” (NJB).
10
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.
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 well-
structured 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 history-
of-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

13
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.
 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.

16
Tomás de Aquino, Catena Aurea Exposición de los cuatro Evangelios (4 vols; Buenos Aires: Cursos
de Cultura Católica, 1946), p. 136.
17
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.
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 house-
holds: 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 intro-
duction 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

21
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.
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 misunder-
standing. 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.

26
P. N. Tarazi, The Old Testament: An Introduction (3 vols; Crestwood: Saint Vladimir’s Seminary
Press, rev. edn 2003), pp. 22–5.
27
P. N. Tarazi, The New Testament: An Introduction (4 vols; Crestwood: Saint Vladimir’s Seminary
Press, 2001), p. 64.
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 Greco-

Roman 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,
1

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.
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 discrimi-
nation. 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 discrimi-
nation 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,

2
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.
 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 first-
century 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 consid-
eration. 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

4

Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts, 2010, pp. 184–5.

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 contu-
bernia 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 permis-
sible 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

5
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.
 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 insti-
tution 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.

9
C. Osiek-D. L. Balch, ibid., p. 41.
10
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.
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 power-
lessness of these slaves was thus a substitute for death. They were socially dead
persons, without birthright, isolated from their social heritage and the tradi-
tions 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).
13

G. F. Wessels, “The Letter to Philemon in the Context of Slavery in Early Christianity,” in F. Tolmie
14

(ed.), Philemon in Perspective. Interpreting a Pauline Letter, Berlin: W. de Gruyter, 2010, pp. 148–9.
 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

15
G. F. Wessels, ibid., p. 159.
16
G. F. Wessels, ibid., p. 153.
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

17
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).
 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

20
“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.”
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:

23
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.
 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

26
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.
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 resur-
rected 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

28
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.
 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

31
J. Murphy-O’Connor, “The First Letter to the Corinthians,” The New Jerome Biblical Commentary,
49: 34–40.
32
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.
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 enkra-
teuontai)” 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 commu-
nities 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

34
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.
 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

36
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.
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 under-
stood 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 inter-
preters 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

39
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.
 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

42
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.
43
G. F. Wessels, “The Letter to Philemon in the Context of Slavery in Early Christianity,” in D. F.
Tolmie, Philemon in Perspective, p. 164.
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 disap-
pearance in the western world of the Renaissance.”46

44
R. E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament, Doubleday, New York, 1996, p. 506.
45
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.
 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 encyc-
lical, 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

47
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.
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

50
H. W. Hoehner, ibid., p. 220.
51
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.”
 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

54
F. Thielman, Ephesians, pp. 365–410.
55
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.
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 deutero-
Pauline 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

57
C. Osiek and D. L. Balch, ibid., p. 221.
58
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 trans-
lation, that the reason was and still is that Serbian Orthodox clergy and lay faithful prefer Karadžić
because of its traditional liturgical Serbian.
 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 egali-
tarian 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 “subor-
dinate 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).

61
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.”
 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 partic-
ipate 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
1

of Research Grants no. 10812.

Regarding the term “Sacred or Holy or Divine Canons”: The same regulations, that is, canonical
2

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:
  … 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

4
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 constitu-
tionnel 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.
 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

10
Sic.
11
Sic.
12
13th Canon of Ecumenical Council “in Trullo,” [Pedalion (= The Rudder), p. 305].
13
1st Canon of Saint Athanasius the Great [Pedalion (= The Rudder), p. 759].
14
See the previous footnote.
15
Pedalion (= The Rudder), p. 871.
16
Pedalion (= The Rudder), p. 844.
17
Pedalion (= The Rudder), p. 531.
18
1st Canon of Saint Athanasius the Great [Pedalion (= The Rudder), p. 760].
19
See the previous footnote.
20
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 eccle-
siastical 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 regula-
tions 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

21
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).
 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 sacra-
mental 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

28
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).
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

32
Article 1 of Law 3719/2008 (Government Gazette folio no. 241, Issue Α, 26.11.2008).
33
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.
 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 termi-
nation 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

40
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.
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

44
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.
 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 legis-
lation (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

49
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.
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

56
53rd Canon of the Ecumenical Council “in Trullo” [Pedalion (= The Rudder), p. 353].
57
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].
 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

64
Law 1329/83 (Government Gazette of the Hellenic Republic, folio no. 25, Issue Α, 18–2–1983).
65
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].
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

72
Pedalion (= The Rudder), p. 528.
73
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].
 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 indis-
solubility 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 unques-
tionable 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 liberali-
zation and modernization that has developed during the last 30 years within

77
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.
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.

82
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).
 4

Glimpses into the Cappadocian Fourth-

Century 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 aristo-
cratic 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 Judeo-
pagan 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

1
Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. XVIII, 5.
2
Or. XVIII, 6
3
Or. VIII, 5
4
Or. XVIII, 16
5
Or. XVIII, 17.
6
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).

7
Or. VII, 3.
8
Or. VIII, 6.
9
Or. VIII, 6.
10
Or. VIII, 8.
58 Christian Family and Contemporary Society

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 disso-
lution, for indeed she had great boldness towards Him who called her, and

11
Or. VIII, 8.
12
Or. VIII, 11.
13
Or. VIIII, 13.
14
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 intro-
duced 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

15
Or. VIII, 19.
16
Or. VIII, 21.
17
Or. VII, 10.
18
Or. VII, 11.
60 Christian Family and Contemporary Society

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 inher-
itance, 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 extraor-
dinary, 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

19
Or. VII, 15.
20
Or. VII, 4.
21
Or. VIII, 4.
22
Or. VII, 4.
23
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

24
Or. VIII, 4.
25
Or. XVIII, 8.
26
Or. VIII, 5.
62 Christian Family and Contemporary Society

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

27
Or. XVIII, 16.
28
Or. XVIII, 16.
29
Or. XVIII, 18.
 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, never-
theless 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

30
J. A. McGuckin, St. Gregory of Nazianzus. An Intellectual Biography (Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s
Seminary Press, 2001), p. 20.
31
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.
64 Christian Family and Contemporary Society

possessions – and debts – that he left behind do not precisely support his philo-
sophical 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.

33
Cf. J. A. McGuckin, op. cit., p. 15.
34
Or. XVIII, 43.
35
VIII, 23.
 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.

1

Sinaxarul sfinţilor capadocieni (Bucureşti: Cuvântul Vieţii Publishing House, 2009).

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

3
Ibid. p. 4.
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-Interpretări-
Bibliografie. [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).
 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.

8
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.
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

10
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
 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,
18

“Problema căsătoriilor mixte în lumina documentelor oficiale şi propunerile comisiilor intercon-

fesionale 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,
 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 forni-
cation. 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 antici-
pation 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.
23

Ibid., pp. 84–5.

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

25
Ibid., p. 25.
26
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).
74 Christian Family and Contemporary Society

for committing adultery.28 The Trullo Canon 54 elaborates what St. Basil specifi-
cally 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 scrip-
tural, 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,

28
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.
 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

33
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.
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,” partici-
pating 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.

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

38
Ibid., p. 122.
39
Ibid., p. 122.
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 prede-
cessors 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.

1
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.
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

6
Pontifical Council for the Family, The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality (8-XII–1995), n. 3.
7
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.
 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 sacra-
ments, 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

9
Cf. Eph. 5.32–33; cf. John Paul II, Exhort. apost. Familiaris consortio (22-XI–1981), n. 13.
10
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.
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).

13

Eph. 3.15; cf. John Paul II, Exhort. apost. Familiaris consortio (22–XI–1981), n. 14.
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 consti-
tutes the interior strength that shapes and animates the family communion.

15
Council of Vatican II, Const. dogm. Lumen gentium, n. 11; Decree Apostolicam actuositatem, n. 11.
16
Mt. 19.6; Gen. 2.24; cf. John Paul II, Exhort. apost. Familiaris consortio (22–XI–1981), n. 18.
86 Christian Family and Contemporary Society

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 respon-
sible 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.
17

Catechism of The Catholic Church (1997), n. 2207.

18

Charter of The Rights of The Family (22–X–1983). Presented by the Holy See to all persons, institu-
19

tions and authorities concerned with the mission of the family in today’s world.
 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

20
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.
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 insti-
tution 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 evange-
lizing, 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,
22

Preparatory Catecheses for the Fifth World Meeting of Families. First Catechesis, n. 4, Rome 2006.
 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) every-
thing 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

23
Council of Vatican II, Declaration on Christian Education Gravissimum educationis, n. 2.
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 increas-
ingly 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 litur-
gical 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 obliga-
tions 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.

24
Cf. Mt. 19.12.
25
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.
 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 denomi-
nation, sacramental and non sacramental. By the term “mixed marriage” we
understand the marriage of Christians from two canonically different denomi-
nations, 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 pontif-
icate 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).
1

Catechism of the Catholic Church. Second Edition. Revised with the official Latin text promulgated by
2

Pope John Paul II (Vatican: Liberia Editrice Vaticana 1997).

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 sacra-
mental 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 denomina-
tions 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

3

principles and norms on ecumenism, AAS 85(1993), 1039–1119.

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-of-

4

laodicea.htm
 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 prohi-
bition 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

5
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).
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 reformu-
lated 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.

8
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

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 yoked-

together, 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
1

Sacrament, IV) (Familia Ortodoxă, October 10(33) (2011): 11).

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.
2

Ibid., p. 12.
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 self-
giving, 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,
4

Philip Schaff (ed.) (1867; reprint, Grant Rapids: Eerdemans, 1994), 145.
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

5
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.
 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 ontologi-
cally 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 conti-
nuity 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 stere-
otypes, 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

9
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 Melniciuc-
Puică (eds) (Iaşi, Romania: Doxologia Publishing House, 2011), 272.
10
Teşu, 271.
 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 responsi-
bility, 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

11
Teşu, 272.
12
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.
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 inter-
ference 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 inter-
family/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

13
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.
 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 well-
formed 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, trans-
forming 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 under-
standing 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

15
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.
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

19
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.
 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 distur-
bances, 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 delete-
rious 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,

21
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.
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

24
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).
 Family between Tradition/Traditions and Contemporary Life 113

commitment is often replaced by pragmatic calculations, and marriage commit-

ments 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 experi-
enced 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.

26
Faros and Kofinas, 224–5.
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

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

29
Teşu, 299–300.
 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 interpreta-
tions 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 varia-
tions 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:
2

Pallotinum, 1979), p. 109.

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 dualis-
tically 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:
3

Calwer Verlag, 1979), p. 12.

 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:
4

CPH, 1959), pp. 317–19.

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 reali-
zation 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.
5

Lähteenmäki, O., Sexus und Ehe bei Luther (Turku: Luther-Agricola-Gesellschaft, 1955), p. 45.
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 theolo-
gians. 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 (“impedi-
menta”) 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 sacra-
ments 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),
7

p. 89.
Napiórkowski, S. C., Solus Christus. Zbawcze pośrednictwo według “Księgi Zgody” (Lublin: RW KUL,
8

1999), p. 34.
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 deter-

mined 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 acknowl-
edges 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 signifi-
cantly 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
1

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.
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
2

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 intercom-
munion is raised when participating in a Divine Liturgy outside of the Orthodox parish.
 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 mothers-
in-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 educa-
tional 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 infor-
mation 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 influ-
ences 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 denomi-
nations, 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
3

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).
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,
4

Changing family patterns in the Arab East (Beirut: American University of Beirut, 1974).
 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 prepa-
ration 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

5
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 under-
standing 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.
 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 affili-
ation? 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 misun-
derstanding. 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

8
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.
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

10

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.
 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 well-
known 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 atmos-
phere 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 relation-
ships 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,
11

MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1999), p. 63.

 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 institu-
tions 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

1

mother in the face of of rough difficulties.

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,
2

pp. 197–206.
 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 crisis-

rebound—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: hetero-
sexual 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 devel-
opments in society, we propose to observe three viewpoints.

Relationships evolution in the couple

In the Ancient Roman Civilization,4 there already existed marriage and cohabi-
tation. 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.
3

Cf. the book of Jean Gaudemet, Le mariage en Occident, (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1987), with above
4

a canon lawyer’s viewpoint.

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
5

des religions, January 2007, pp. 23–38.

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
6

Chronique Sociale, 1995), p. 41.

 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).

7
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).
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 observa-
tions, 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!”

9
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.
152 Christian Family and Contemporary Society

The family will always stay with us, even in its vulnerability, a place of possi-
bilities 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 acknowl-
edging 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 aforemen-
tioned 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

1
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 familien-
politische 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).
 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.

4
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).
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

6
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
 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

11
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.”
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 insti-
tutional 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 appre-
ciation 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

14
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 magis-
terium, 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.
 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 seculari-
zation 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

18
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).
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 profes-
sional 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

22
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.
 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 life-
world 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

25
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.
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 antago-
nistic 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 spiritu-
ality 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 spirit-
uality 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 dissi-
dents 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 tradi-
tions 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,

29
Ibid., p. 15.
30
Ibid., p. 20.
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
1

Ostrobotnia.
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 publica-
2

tions of the Lutheran church are no exception. One useful piece of work is Perheessä on voimaa
(1993), for details, see the bibliography.
 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 circum-
stances 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 professor-
ships 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 conse-
quences 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.”

3
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.
 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 decision-
makers 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 explana-
tions 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 reluc-
tance 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
5

husbands frequently fishing on the open seas have made it possible and necessary for the wives to
take the practical lead.
 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 already-
mentioned 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 individu-
alistic 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 empha-
sizing 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, particu-
larly 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.
6

In the bibliography a few have been included nevertheless. See Kirkko ja rekisteröidyt parisuhteet
(2009).
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).
1

Dumitru Abrudan and Emilian Corniţescu, Arheologia Biblică (Biblical Archeology), (Bucureşti:
2

Institutul Biblic şi de Misiune al Bisericii Ortodoxe Române Publishing House (IBMBOR), 2002,
p. 114).
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 consid-
ering 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 respon-
sibility: 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

3
Nicolae Achimescu, “Familia creştină între tradiţie şi modernitate. Consideraţii teologico-
sociologice” (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.
 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,
6

(Bucureşti: IBMBOR, 1978, p. 183).

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

7
Ibid., p. 182.
8
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.
 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 liber-
tinage (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.

11
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 Ortodoxă Română a Oradiei Publishing House, 1983,
p. 383).
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 disappoint-
ments 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 recip-
rocally, 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

14
Nicolae Achimescu, “Familia creştină între tradiţie şi modernitate. Consideraţii teologico-
sociologice” (“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.
 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

16
Molitfelnic (Euchologion), (Bucureşti: IBMBOR, 1992, p. 84).
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 recommen-
dation 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 litur-
gical 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).
17

N. D. Necula, “Ce rol au naşii de Cununie şi ce condiţii trebuie să îndeplinească?” (“What is the
18

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).
 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.

19
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).
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

1
Originally, the focus on upbringing comes from the late thirteenth century Njáls Saga.
2
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.
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
4

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
5

wounds and heals; no one can be rescued from my powerful hand!”

 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 discour-
agement 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
7

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
8

nútímasamfélagi.” (Unpublished Cand. Theol. dissertation from the University of Iceland, 1992).
 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 one-
or 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, “appro-
priate 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

10
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.
 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).

16
Plenty of advice on anger management can be found on the internet.
17
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.
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–
19

40), originally from Leviticus 19.18: “Love your neighbour as yourself.”

 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
20 Karl Sigurbjörnsson, Lítið kver um kristna trú (Reykjavík: Skálholtsútgáfan, 2000), (author´s
translation).
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 unaccep-
table 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

21
Macquarrie 1986.
22
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.
 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 authori-
tative 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

24
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.
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

27
Aðalbjarnardóttir and Hafsteinsson 2001.
28
NLT Study Bible, theme notes on “Children and Parents,” p. 1057.
29
Compare the Sermon on the Mount, especially Matthew 5.21–8.
 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 church-
goers, 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

1
Groeger, G., “Familie, Familienverbände I, evang. Sicht,” H. Krüger, W. Löser, and W. Müller-
Römheld, Ökumenelexicon, (Frankfurt am Main: Otto Lembeck, Josef Knecht 1987, 2nd edn), p. 372.
2
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.
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 child-
care. 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
4

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
 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 vulnera-
bility 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

5
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-misbruik-
minderjarigen_RKK_Deetman-deel–2.pdf
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,
7

2004), pp. 797–859.

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

8
In this contribution the translation of the Holy Bible, Contemporary English Version (1999) is used.
9
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).
 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.

13
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).
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 confes-
sion.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

17
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
 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 inter-
action 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.

24

http://wcrc.ch/sites/default/files/StrategicPlanWebE.pdf
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 secular-
izing 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 (μετάνοια), 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 escha-
tological 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

1
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.
 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 myste-
rious 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 arche-
typal monad: Adam-Eve.”6

3
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.
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).

7

Ilie Moldovan, op.cit., vol. I (p. 95).

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 relation-
ships, 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, under-
standing, 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.

9
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.
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 require-
ments. 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 civili-
zation 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 relation-
ships 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 obliga-
tions 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.cresti-

12

nortodox.ro/editoriale/implicatiile-pastorale-ecumenice-casatoriilor-mixte–70028.html
John Meyendorff, Căsătoria-perspectiva ortodoxă (translated by Cezar Login, Cluj-Napoca: Patmos
13

Publishing House, 2007), pp. 66, 67, 69.

 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 inter-
feres 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

14
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.
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

18
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 contem-
poran (T. Gabor (trans.), Oradea: Casa Cărţii Publishing House, 2009), p. 342.
 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, spiritual-
religious (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.

22
Daniel, Patriarhul Bisericii Ortodoxe Române, Demnitatea şi responsabilitatea familiei preotului
în viaţa Bisericii, http://www.crestinortodox.ro/stiri/crestinortodox/demnitatea-responsabili-
tatea-familiei-preotului-viata-bisericii–123721.html
 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

1

Y ku generácii Z (Banská Bystrica: KTK PF UMB, 2012), pp. 9–26 (9).

226 Christian Family and Contemporary Society

(called Generation Z by sociologists). Of course, the following generaliza-

tions 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 desper-
ately 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

2
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).
 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, post-
human, 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 command-
ments 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
4

Changing Our World Forever (Emeryville: Pachatusan, 2008), p. 55.

“The Ten Commandments of Generation Z,” Time Out Sydney, http://www.au.timeout.com/sydney/
5

kids/features/1565/the-ten-commandments-of-generation-z
228 Christian Family and Contemporary Society

  3 You shall always have your mobile on you.

  4 You shall use your computer for computer games.
  5 You shall have many friends that you will never meet face to face.
  6 You shall have a second life (in the cyber world).
  7 You shall be extremely independent.
  8 You shall do a lot of things simultaneously (multi-tasking).
  9 You shall always demand/desire something.
10 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
6

(Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2008).

 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 super-
vision. 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
7

Winterhoff, http://www.goethe.de/wis/fut/bko/en6480095.htm
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 educa-
tional 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 implemen-
tation 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 deterio-
ration 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 character-
istics 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 commu-
nication 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 socio-
moral 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 charac-
teristics 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

8
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).
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.

10
A. Bravená Maďarová, “Náboženská výchova a  morálny rozvoj detí mladšieho školského veku”
(Unpublished doctoral dissertation; Banská Bystrica: KETM PF UMB, 2011).
11
J. Kotásková and I. Vajda, Test morální zralosti osobnosti (Bratislava: Psychodiagnostické a didak-
tické 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.
 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, poten-
tially 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

16
Forthcoming.
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 socio-
moral 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

17
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 socio-
morálneho 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.
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
19

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.
 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 confes-
sions, 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

20
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.
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 eschato-
logical 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

22

Y ku generácii Z (Banská Bystrica: KTK PF UMB, 2012), pp. 114–41 (135–7).

 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 discus-
sions 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 disser-
tation 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, coordi-
nated 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 thera-
peutic pastoral care approach. His aim is to deal with modern challenges
facing the Church in a pluralistic and secularized world. Building on scien-
tific 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 confir-
mation 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 Greco-
Roman 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 Greco-
Roman 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. Poznań-
Warszawa. 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: Vektor-
Verlag. 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-viata-

bisericii-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 Gnilka, J. 6

Aðalbjarnardóttir, S. 198–9 Gorgonia (sister of Gregory) 57, 60, 63,
Alypios (husband of Gorgonia) 57 64
Amphilochius of Iconium 55, 56, 69 Gregory of Nazianzus 55–64, 65
Arendt, H. 144–5 Gregory of Nyssa 43, 58, 65
Aristotle 21 Gregory the Elder 55, 56, 60–4
Athanasius the Great 43
Auffret-Pericone, M. 149 Henry IV 146
Hinkmar (archbishop of Reims) 122
Balch, D. L. 17 Houten, R. van 210
Basil of Caesarea 55 Hubbard, M.V. 19
Great, the 43, 65–71, 73–7
Bonhoeffer, D. 163 Ignatius 38
Böszörményi-Nagy I. 203
Bovon, F. 11 Jerôme (saint) 152
Bukowski, S. 209 Joanides, Ch. 136
Bultmann, R. 30 John Chrysostom 73, 92, 102, 104, 108,
Buonaparte, Napoleon 145 109
John Paul II (pope) 81–92, 93, 100, 155,
Caesarios (brother of Gregory) 56, 57, 59, 156–9, 205
60, 63, 64 John Scholasticus 68
Čarnić, E. 38, 39 John Zonaras 52
Chryssavgis, J. xi Johnson, E. 37
Collins, R. F. 32 Jónsson, G. 195
Constantine VII (emperor) 75 Julian (emperor) 63
Crates 19 Justin M. (patriarch) 66

Daniel, C. (patriarch) 65, 67, 223 Khodre, G. (archbishop of Mount

Dedon, T. xi Lebanon) 129
Diodorus of Tarsus 69 Koffeman, L. 212
Dressler-Kromminga, S. 212 Kohlberg, L. 232
Kuyper, A. 211
Emilianos Simonopetritul 101
Evdokimov, P. xi Leo the Philosopher (emperor) 44, 75
Leo XIII 96–7, 156
Fitzmyer, J. A. 26, 27, 30, 32 Lombard P. 123
Framo, J. 203 Luckmann, Th. 160–1
Francis of Assisi 163 Luther, M. 117, 120, 122, 123, 125, 126

George (Saint) 65 Macquarrie, J. 194, 198

Gide, A. 151 Macrina (sister of Basil) 55, 58
Gitari (bishop of Kenya) 209 Maďarová, A. B. 232
266 Index of Names

Maldonado, J. E. 209 Revault d’Allones, M. 144

Mercury (saint) 65 Ritzer, K. xi
Meyendorff, J. xi, 135 Roman I (emperor) 75
Moses 57 Romero, O. 163
Mounier, E. 149
Moxnes, H. 28 Šalátová, K. 235
Murphy-O’Connor, J. 28, 32 Samuel 57
Musonius Rufus 23–4 Sarah 60
Sava of Buzau (saint) 65
Nicholas I 75 Sava the Pious 65
Noah, 56, 57 Seneca 21, 31
Nonna 60 Sigurbjörnsson, K. 197
Šoltésová, V. 231
Ondrášek, N. B. 226
Onesimos 33–4 Tacitus 22
Osiek, C. 17, 20, 21, 24, 32, 37, 38 Tarazi, P. N. 15
Tertullian 84
Panikar, R. 147 Theodosius the Great 65
Paul VI (pope) 87 Thomas Aquinas 123
Paul of Tarsus 17 Trostyanskiy, S. xi
Paul, Vincent de 146 Tychicus 34
Pedanius Secundus 22
Photios 68 Vrame, A. 137–8
Pius XI, Pope 156
Plutarch 19, 20–1
Waaijman, Kees 161–4
Popović, J. 38
Wessels, G. F. 22–3
Quintilius 19
Zola, E. 145
Raes, A. xi
 Index of Subjects

Actus generationis 121 Clergy 48, 51, 63, 68, 70, 72, 74, 121, 129,
Anankē 18 160, 162
Anastasis xii Communion (Holy) xv, xvi, xxi, xxiv, xxv,
Arcanum divinae 156 xxvii, xxix, 8, 12, 36, 45, 52, 71,
Casti connubii 156 75, 76, 78, 81–8, 96, 110, 114, 119,
Copula carnalis 122 129, 134, 135, 158, 177–9, 182, 183,
Desertio malitiosa 126 203–17
Ex opere operato 123 penance 46, 52, 71, 74, 76, 78
Familiaris consortio 156 community vii, ix, 4–9, 15, 22, 25–8,
Hetaira 27 31–6, 82–6, 88–95, 98–100, 105,
Hierodoulos 27 112, 114, 118, 137, 138, 144,
Hypotagma xxiii, xxiv, xxix 157, 158, 160–7, 173, 174, 178,
Kairos xiii, xxi 179, 184, 185, 196, 205, 207, 214,
Kenosis xv, xxii–xxv, xxviii, xxix 222–6, 228
Merkavah xxv competence 104, 159–61, 230, 237, 240
Metanoia, xx 137, 214 computer 227, 228, 232, 234
Pornē 27 communication vii, 54, 111, 113, 130,
217, 219, 222, 228, 231, 240
behavior 3, 64, 89, 106, 172, 192, 194, 200, games 228, 232, 234
201, 214, 219, 228, 230, 235, 237, internet 54, 227, 228
238 Council 41, 42, 46, 48, 50, 53, 64, 75,
95–7, 99, 122, 123, 145, 156, 158,
Canon Law 47–50, 93, 95–98, 125, 131 197, 203, 210–12, 219
sacred cannons 41–52
Catholic ix, x, 17, 26, 39, 81, 83, 85, 87, dignity vii, 18, 22, 23, 39, 77, 89, 90, 92,
89, 91, 93–100, 117–31, 134–6, 143, 94, 109, 118, 120, 137, 148
145–7, 149, 151, 153, 154, 156, 159, discipline x, 67, 68, 72, 78, 132, 189,
160, 203, 205, 206, 219, 237 191–201, 230
Christmas 96, 147, 197, 232 discrimination 18, 90, 107–9, 171, 223
Church viii, ix, xi–xviii, xxii–xxx,
4–9, 17, 31–9, 41–7, 49–54, 56, Easter 128, 147, 151, 196, 197, 232, 234
62, 65–78, 82–9, 92–100, 103, education x, xxix, 9, 17, 20, 24, 25, 51, 55,
105, 108, 110–12, 114, 117–19, 59, 72, 77, 84, 85, 87–9, 91, 92, 106,
123–31, 133–9, 145, 147, 150, 110, 111, 120, 127–9, 133–9, 143,
153–65, 168, 170, 173–7, 179–85, 146, 151, 168, 169, 178, 195, 204–6,
192, 196, 197, 199, 201, 203–7, 216, 225–40
209–12, 214–16, 219–23, 227, catechesis 87, 91, 130, 137, 231, 237,
231–233, 237, 238 formal 230
denomination(al), ix–x, 17, 93, 95–8, methods 228, 229, 236, 237, 239
117, 130–7, 153, 168, 206, 219, 232, process 230, 239
236, 237, 240 Eucharistic xxii, xxvii, 25, 51, 76, 96, 123,
Church Father(s) 36, 69, 68, 69, 73, 76–8 134, 135, 206
268 Index of Subjects

family vii–x, xiv, xxii, xxiv, 3, 8–11, 14, 15, traditional family 106, 132, 218
17, 19, 20, 23, 24, 38, 39, 46, 50, 51, family (crisis) xi, 55, 63, 110, 114, 129,
54, 55, 58, 60–2, 64, 67, 70, 76, 77, 143–5, 150, 151, 163, 216, 218, 223,
81, 84, 85–91, 98, 99, 102, 104–15, 231, 240
117, 118, 120, 121, 127–38, 143–9, abortion 52, 174, 216, 220–3
151–9, 163–85, 193, 195, 197, adoption 50, 84, 145, 146, 167, 223
199–223, 226, 229, 232–4 adultery 20, 53, 71, 73–5, 94, 121, 125,
Christian family vii–x, 7, 36, 41, 61, 126, 180, 216, 220, 221
69, 78, 88, 90, 100, 111, 114, 132, bigamy 47, 53
156, 157, 181, 184, 185, 203, 205, child abuse 172, 205
206, 209–11, 215, 216, 218, 220, cohabitation vii, viii, 4, 43, 45, 46, 72,
222, 223 123, 145, 146, 174, 182, 218
Christian (Catholic) family 143, 147, concubinage, 45, 70, 107
154 divorce, xv, xvi, xxii, xxvi, 5–7, 23,
conjugal harmony 149–50, 179 29–31, 47, 53, 70, 75, 76, 94, 111,
couple xv–xix, 6, 20, 29, 37, 39, 46, 123–6, 129, 131, 132, 144, 145,
54, 84, 93, 95, 98, 101, 106, 110, 149, 150, 172, 175, 176, 180, 182,
113, 127–31, 135–9, 143, 145, 146, 183, 204, 216, 217, 220, 221, 223,
149–51, 157, 167–70, 173–5, 179, 229–30
183, 184, 191, 206, 214, 216, 219 family violence 172
domestic Church 85, 88, 158 fidelity vii, 37, 82, 85, 151, 183
extended family 203, 209 fornication 6, 26, 27, 30, 47, 71, 72, 75,
family community 89, 167 77, 122
family (marriage) counseling 176, 203 infidelity 19, 20, 82, 172, 180, 221
family ideology 173 monoparental 145
family institution 170 planning 206, 216
family life x, 67, 77, 86, 91, 102, 105, trial marriage 70, 216, 218
110, 113, 114, 118, 127, 129, 132, father xiv, xv, 8, 14, 19, 21, 22, 25, 33, 36,
136, 147, 149, 153, 154, 156, 163, 43, 55–7, 60–7, 68–71, 73–8, 84,
164, 168–70, 172–9, 181–4, 203–7, 86–9, 96, 101, 103, 118, 119, 128,
209, 211, 212, 217, 219, 223 129, 132–6, 144, 146, 163, 170–3,
family spirituality 158, 164 178, 180, 183, 189–95, 198–209,
Finnish family 174 213, 215, 220, 222, 228
French family 146–9, 151 freedom viii, xv, xxiii, 13, 21, 26, 27, 32,
inter-family level 106 34, 63, 64, 86, 89, 90, 109, 113, 120,
inter–family relationships 105, 108, 135, 139, 148, 151, 216, 220, 222,
223 230
Jewish family 3, 17 friendship, 24, 163, 229, 234
“Nuclear family” 167, 203
Occidental family 143 generation viii, x, xxix, 16, 66, 72, 90, 105,
Orthodox family 41 111, 121, 128, 134, 154, 162–4, 192,
Patchwork families 204 195, 212, 225–40
paterfamilias xxiii, 10, 19 genealogy 164
patriarchal family 10, 144 generation X 226
pregnancy 52, 218 generation Y 226–8
procreation 82, 86, 94, 120, 133, 146, generation Z 225–40
221 global, 210, 227, 228, 231, 240
reformed family 210–12 globalization 127
saintly family 60 God vii, ix, xii, xiv–xxvii, xxix, xxx, 3,
 Index of Subjects 269

4, 6–10, 12–15, 17, 23, 26–38, 42, 172–85, 189–92, 194–6, 199, 200,
43, 50, 56–65, 73, 75, 77, 81–97, 203–9, 211–15, 217, 219, 221–3,
102, 104–7, 112, 118–26, 131, 135, 227, 228, 234, 236–9
138, 139, 147, 150, 156–8, 162–5, liturgy xxvi, xxviii, xxx, 39, 76, 89, 91,
173, 177–85, 189, 202, 204–9, 211, 135, 158
213–17, 221–3, 232–40 love vii–xi, xiii, xv, xx, xxv–xxix, 3, 5,
good xix, 14, 21, 27, 29–32, 36–9, 48, 9–12, 15, 16, 19, 31, 33–9, 64, 67,
56–62, 66, 67, 72, 77, 78, 86, 72, 73, 77, 81–94, 101–3, 106, 108,
89–106, 109, 114, 120, 144, 145, 109, 114, 118–22, 129, 131, 137–9,
148, 162, 163, 172, 173, 181, 183, 143, 148–52, 157, 177–85, 189–201,
189–201, 207, 208, 213, 226, 229, 205–8, 212–17, 219, 221–3, 229,
233–5, 236, 240 237–40
Gospel ix, xvi, xvii, xxi, xxvi–xxviii, 3–5, Lutheran ix, 99, 117–26, 168, 173–6, 196,
7–18, 30, 33, 38, 39, 42, 66, 67, 87, 210, 237
88, 94, 102, 103, 148–51, 208, 214,
220 marriage, vii–xviii, xxi–xxx, 3–8, 19–20,
Greek legislation 41, 42, 47, 49–53 23–5, 28–31, 37, 39, 42–51, 53–4,
civil code 44, 47, 49 61, 70–5, 77, 81–5, 87, 89, 92–104,
penal law 47, 52 106–7, 109, 112–14, 117–37, 139,
145, 147–9, 150–1, 154–7, 159, 163,
happiness vii, xviii, 18, 82, 84, 102, 106, 168–70, 173–7, 179–85, 204–7,
149, 151, 181–3, 185, 202, 217, 233 213–21.
holiness xxix, 67, 89, 123, 128, 151, 183, abstinence 7, 8, 72
216, 217 celibacy xii, xiv, 3, 7, 8, 25, 28–30, 70,
Holy Trinity xxv, 62, 67, 69, 177, 178, 92, 123, 206
213–16 child (children) xiv, xxviii, 3, 5, 6, 8,
9, 14, 15, 20–4, 36–9, 48–60, 71,
identity, ix, x, 25, 28, 36, 85, 108, 109, 111, 77, 83–100, 105, 109–15, 121, 122,
112, 117, 128, 129, 134, 210, 226 127–38, 144–56, 163, 167–76,
image, x, xiv, xviii, xix, xxv, xxvi, 11, 179–183, 189–207, 212, 213, 216,
19, 37, 58, 66, 72, 81, 82, 86, 92, 218, 219, 221, 225–40
93, 118, 119, 138, 139, 150, 158, civil marriage 44, 45, 47–50, 53, 132
178–80, 215, 222, 232, 239 consanguinity 49, 73, 125
injustice 14, 16, 201, 208, 209, 234 gender 58, 74, 106, 132, 233
issues ix, xix, 4, 21, 37, 42, 44, 54, 68, 70, godchild 50
77, 78, 108, 113, 131, 134, 136, 137, godparent(s) 45, 50, 184
155, 156, 163, 193, 206, 207, 212, grandmother 55
218, 225, 226, 233–7, 240 grandparents 90, 110, 167, 234, 236
Holy matrimony 214, 223
Kingdom of God xii, xvii–xx, xxvii, 87, husband xxiii–xxviii, 19–21, 24, 29,
92, 185, 208 31, 32, 36, 37, 39, 49–51, 55, 57–61,
63, 76, 85–7, 94, 96, 100, 102–4,
laity 74, 158, 160–1, 164 108–10, 121, 126, 128, 129, 132,
life vii, viii, x–xii, xiv, xvi–xviii, xxii, xxiv, 134–6, 150, 171–7, 179–81, 185,
xxv, xvii–xxix, 3–5, 7–12, 14–16, 220
21, 24, 27–33, 43, 52, 55–9, 61, marriage preparation 127, 129, 134,
63–8, 77, 81–91, 94–7, 100–3, 136, 150–1, 183–4
105–15, 118–20, 127–33, 136–9, mixed marriage ix, 31, 48, 49, 70, 93,
143–51, 154, 156–65, 168–70, 95–100
270 Index of Subjects

monogamy 6, 182 Old Testament xv, xxvi, 3, 34, 37, 119,

parent-child 199, 228, 229 163, 190, 194–5, 207–8
parents x, 9, 19, 37, 39, 51, 52, 57, 61, Orthodox viii, ix–xiii, xvi, xxii, xxvi–xxx,
63, 64, 71, 77, 85, 87–92, 110–15, 38, 41–51, 53–6, 62, 65, 68, 69, 94,
121, 133, 146, 157, 167, 171, 173, 96, 99, 101, 102, 105, 106, 109–14,
175, 176, 183, 184, 189, 191–201, 127–39, 173, 174, 177–85, 203, 206,
204, 226, 228–40 213–23, 237
parenting styles, 198–9 Church ix, xvi, xxix, xxx, 44–7, 49, 50,
partner relations 163 54, 65, 94, 99, 110, 127–31, 134–9,
partnership viii, xxv, 30, 106, 112, 120, 173, 174, 184, 203, 206, 214, 219,
229 220, 223
sacrament of marriage xxvii, 42, 44, faith 48, 49, 135–9, 213
45, 48, 87, 94, 98, 130, 137, 150–1, spirituality ix, 102, 105, 110, 114
177–85, 216, 221
wife xv, xxiii, xxiv, xxvii, xviii, 7, 14, pastoral care, 54, 70, 73, 75, 77, 96, 98, 99,
15, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25, 29, 31, 32, 153, 157
37, 43, 49–51, 53, 56, 59–61, 71–6, peace, xiii, 31, 105, 120, 191, 200, 202,
85–7, 94, 96, 100–4, 108–12, 119, 207–10, 212
124–6, 129, 145, 150, 171, 178, 180, people, xv, xviii, xx, xxii, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12–15,
181, 202 22, 23, 25, 31, 56, 57, 63, 65, 66, 72,
martyrdom xxv–xxviii 73, 82, 87, 90–2, 102–10, 112, 113,
media 131, 147, 149, 226, 229, 231 119, 130, 138, 144, 147–9, 154, 157,
mother xv, xxi, 14, 55, 56, 60, 61, 64, 74, 161, 162, 167–70, 172–6, 182–4,
84, 86, 96, 119, 132, 138, 144–6, 190, 191, 195, 204–9, 214, 215–18,
168, 171–3, 178, 180, 181, 189, 225, 227, 229, 232–3, 235–8
190–5, 198, 200, 203–5, 207–9, 213, disabled 233
218, 228, 230, 235 homeless 233
monastic asceticism xi, xxix, 7, 58 hungry xxviii, 233
chastity 7–8, 24, 73 race xviii, 81, 213, 233
fervour 66 pilgrimage 61, 212
leadership xi Pontifical Council for the Family 158
life 65, 67, 118 for Promoting Christian Unity 210
monks 46, 50, 62, 66, 68, 72, 162 prayer xix, xxvi, 50, 58, 61, 62, 64, 67, 78,
state xi 89, 99, 112, 139, 147, 156, 183, 192,
status 72 193, 195, 197, 207, 234, 237–9
type 159 Priest xix, xxvi, xxvii, 8, 9, 46, 48, 50, 51,
moral viii, 3, 21, 24, 25, 50, 69, 74, 76–8, 54, 64, 68–70, 87, 101, 120, 123,
86, 90, 106, 113, 114, 144, 149, 177, 129, 137–9, 145–7, 156, 157, 179,
178, 181, 182, 216, 222, 223, 225, 183, 184
227, 231, 232, 235–7 Priesthood 48, 64, 74, 118, 157
ethics viii, xix, xxiv, 3, 28, 155, 182, prophets 14, 103, 119, 163, 200, 208
227, 232, 237 Protestant x, 17, 96, 117, 121, 126, 127,
morality viii, 26, 68, 143, 144, 154, 131, 173, 174, 203, 205–7, 209, 210,
156, 181, 214, 218, 223 211, 219
immoral 19, 26
immorality vii, 27, 180, 216 Reformed 99, 204, 206, 207, 210–12, 237
relationship vi–xi, xiv, xvii, xxiii, xxvii,
New Testament xiv, xvi, xxiii, 3, 14, 17, 18, 13, 19, 20, 24, 28, 37, 43, 45, 50, 51,
34, 37, 38, 43, 48, 53, 199, 207, 220 54, 62, 63, 69, 72, 83, 85, 86, 90, 91,
 Index of Subjects 271

103, 105, 106, 108, 109, 111, 112, 121–6, 130–3, 147, 150, 151, 154,
114, 115, 119, 120, 123, 128, 129, 156, 172, 174, 180, 216, 226, 227
133, 138, 139, 145–7, 150–5, 162–5, abuse 22, 23, 26, 37, 76, 172, 198, 205,
168, 169, 172, 173, 175, 183, 191, 226
200, 203–8, 211, 213, 217–19, 225, heterosexual 46, 145, 146
228–30, 232, 233, 237, 239, 240 homosexual 4, 146, 212
religion vii, 8, 34, 48, 49, 61, 91, 128, 135, morality 26
137, 147, 148, 159, 160–4, 172, 181, and social morality 156
191, 196, 219, 233, 234, 237 slave(ry) 13, 17–24, 28, 29, 32–4, 37–9,
religious vi–x, 8, 12, 18, 42, 90, 91, 95, 99, 71, 108, 173
105, 106, 128, 129, 132, 137, 138, spirituality viii–ix, xi, 118, 158–60, 162–4,
153, 156, 159, 160–5, 168, 171–4, 217, 227
179, 184, 195–7, 219, 223, 225–9, Christian spirituality viii, 162, 183–4
231–40 lay spirituality 163–5
affiliation 112, 135, 137 symbol xiii, xvii, xix, xx, xxii, xxix, 82, 83,
atmosphere 128, 129 94, 105, 119, 130, 136, 190, 232
backgrounds ix, 15, 16, 133
ceremony viii, 93, 132 taboo 107, 151, 172, 236
denomination 131, 133, 168 terrorism 226, 227, 231, 235, 240
education x, 72, 87, 129, 225, 226, 228, tolerance vii, 25, 69, 90, 230
231, 232, 234, 236, 237, 239, 240 transcendence xxvi, 240
experience 37, 161, 165
laity 162, 164 unity 6, 28, 69, 82, 84, 86, 94, 99, 105, 108,
life 77, 112, 159, 162 109, 119, 124, 128, 129, 134, 135,
marriage 42, 44, 45, 47, 53 138, 139, 145, 177, 178, 180, 207,
practice 134, 153, 160, 162, 163 210, 212, 215, 216
traditions 160, 162, 164
values 96, 90 values viii, 3, 10, 38, 67, 86–9, 90, 95, 109,
research 17–19, 53, 136, 198, 199, 231, 114, 132, 144, 148, 151, 155, 171–5,
232, 235, 236, 237 181, 191, 200, 214, 216–18, 225,
responsibility viii, 59, 81, 87, 89, 104, 107, 228, 231, 233, 235
134, 136, 156, 178, 182, 185, 192, virginity 7, 20, 30, 42, 92, 118
197 virtual world 228, 240
Roman Catholic Church 93–9, 156, virtues xv, 57, 65, 77, 87, 89, 90, 103, 104,
205–6 114, 185, 201, 215, 216
vocation vii, 31, 59, 81, 82, 87, 90–4, 114,
school x, 5, 17, 87, 89–92, 95, 102, 114, 118, 119, 156, 157
133, 148, 162–4, 193, 196, 197,
225–7, 230–40 wedding feast xvii–xxii, xxix
information 130, 137, 226, 227, 230, widow 14–16, 30, 66, 70, 71, 94, 118, 220
231, 239, 240 wisdom 3, 4, 12, 16, 56, 67, 124, 181, 185,
kindergarten 196, 230 189, 192
learning 89, 95, 136, 195, 225, 230 women xxiii, xxix, 14, 18–21, 31, 32, 35,
Second Vatican Council 97, 156 37, 39, 55, 58, 61, 69, 70, 75, 76, 82,
secularization 54, 153, 159, 173 87, 104–8, 128, 132, 133, 146–149,
sexual xxix, 7, 18–20, 22–9, 53, 106, 169–74, 197, 218–20