In the previous chapter Lewis talked about the negative side of human sexuality and what is wrong with our sexual appetite.  In this chapter Lewis looks at the positive expression of human sexuality, which is a fully committed marriage relationship between a man and a woman.  This relationship, in which one man is joined to one woman on all levels, not just the sexual level but totally combined, is the proper expression of human sexuality.  It is not the sexual act itself which is sinful when one engages in sex outside of marriage, rather it is the fact that it takes one kind of union (sexual) and attempts to wrench it completely apart from all the other kinds of union which are supposed to be a part of any marriage relationship.

Lewis notes the role of chastity in Christian marriage, and then noting that it is also about justice.  Keeping one’s promises is a huge part of justice, and it is an integral part of any Christian marriage because the marriage is built upon the promise by both spouses to be faithful to each other until death.  Here Lewis expresses the rather controversial view that if people do not believe in marriage we should just allow them to live together unmarried:

If people do not believe in permanent marriage, it is perhaps better that they should live together unmarried than that they should make vows they do not mean to keep.  It is true that by living together without marriage they will be guilty (in Christian eyes) of fornication.  But one fault is not mended by adding another:  unchastity is not improved by adding perjury.

Lewis goes on to draw the distinction between love and “being in love”.  So much of our culture is saturated with propaganda from TV, movies, and music which sends the message that this state of “being in love” is the ideal state for any relationship or marriage, and that if you don’t have it in your marriage then you should get out and find another relationship where you do have this feeling.

We tend to think in terms of good or bad, and we don’t really like to think in terms of good, better, and best.  “Being in love” is a very good state, yet it is not the best that we can aspire to.  “Being in love” is a great way to start off a relationship and marriage, but it will not last for the duration of a marriage and it was not intended to.  It is an exercise in foolishness to try to manufacture feelings of “being in love” or to keep them alive after they have passed away.

Love, on the other hand, is a deep unity that transcends all feelings, including the feeling of “being in love”.  It is driven by the will and strengthened by habit, as you intentionally choose to love, to serve, and to trust the person you are married to.  You build days upon days, years upon years of these intentional choices to love, serve, and trust the person you are married to, until it all adds up to a lifetime of love.  This love still exists even in those moments when you do not like the other person.  And in those moments when you could easily choose to go and “be in love” with someone else, this love is the thing that keeps you from leaving.  It is this love that enables you to keep the promises you made when you were first “in love” at the start of your relationship.

Lewis likens this idea of love versus “being in love” to the contrast between a thrill which a boy feels at the prospect of flying and when he joins the military and actually learns to fly a plane, or the contrast between the thrill of seeing a delightful place for the first time and actually going to live there.  In both instances the initial thrill dies away after a while, but is replaced with a quieter and more lasting interest.  In both instances, if you are willing to accept the loss of the initial thrill you will eventually find new thrills in unexpected places; the pilot might discover music and the person living in the beautiful place might discover gardening.

Next Lewis addresses the question of how far we as Christians ought to go in legislating our views of marriage.  Prepare to be rankled, all of you who are in the Dobson crowd.

A great many people seem to think that if you are a Christian yourself you should try to make divorce difficult for every one.  I do not think that.  At least I know I should be very angry if the Mohammedans tried to prevent the rest of us from drinking wine.  My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognise that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives.  There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage:  one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members.  The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not.

The situation here in America is different in that there is a greater percentage of people here who at least call themselves Christian, but I believe Lewis’s point holds nonetheless.  And this is my beef with all the culture war types out there:  I believe that it does no good whatsoever to enforce Christian standards of morality upon people who are not Christian.  All it does is make it a whole lot easier for people to think themselves Christian because they abide by Christian standards of morality.  Not to mention the fact that it is just wrong to expect people to live by a standard that they do not believe in.

Finally Lewis takes on the controversial idea of headship within Christian marriage.  First of all, should there even be a head?  Second, why should it be the husband?

For the first question, Lewis’s answer is yes.  A marriage is a council of two, and in such a council it is impossible to decide issues by majority rule because if there is not unanimity then the vote will always be a tie.  Which means that either the partners will have to either break up and go their separate ways if they come to a decision where they cannot come to full agreement, or somebody has to have the deciding vote that breaks the tie.

So why should that somebody be the husband?  While it is very egalitarian to support the idea of a woman taking the lead in a relationship, few if any like that state of affairs when they see it in real life.  Also, men tend to be more diplomatic in representing the interests of their family to the outside world.

The relations of the family to the outer world–what might be called its foreign policy–must depend, in the last resort, upon the man, because he always ought to be, and usually is, more just to the outsiders.  A woman is primarily fighting for her own children and husband against the rest of the world.  Naturally, almost, in a sense, rightly, their claims override, for her, all other claims.  She is the special trustee of their interests.  The function of the husband is to see that this natural preference of hers is not given its head.  He has the last word in order to protect other people from the intense family patriotism of his wife.  If anyone doubts this, let me ask a simple question.  If your dog has bitten the child next door, or if your child has hurt the dog next door, which would you sooner have to deal with, the master of that house or the mistress?  Or, if you are a married woman, let me ask you this question.  Much as you admire your husband, would you not say that his chief failing is his tendency not to stick up for his rights and yours against the neighbours as vigorously as you would like?  A bit of an Appeaser?

 

Your response: