essay on christian marriage

Featured Essay The Love of God An essay by Sam Storms Read Now
Faithfulness of God
Saving Grace
Adoption by God

U.S. Edition

Arts & Culture
Bible & Theology
Christian Living
Current Events
Faith & Work
As In Heaven
Gospelbound
Post-Christianity?
TGC Podcast
You're Not Crazy
Churches Planting Churches
Help Me Teach The Bible
Word Of The Week
Upcoming Events
Past Conference Media
Foundation Documents
Church Directory
Global Resourcing
Donate to TGC

To All The World

The world is a confusing place right now. We believe that faithful proclamation of the gospel is what our hostile and disoriented world needs. Do you believe that too? Help TGC bring biblical wisdom to the confusing issues across the world by making a gift to our international work.

A Biblical View of Marriage

Other essays.

The biblical view of marriage is of a God-given, voluntary, sexual and public social union of one man and one woman, from different families, for the purpose of serving God.

Marriage was first instituted by God in the order of creation, given by God as an unchangeable foundation for human life. Marriage exists so that through it humanity can serve God through children, through faithful intimacy, and through properly ordered sexual relationships. This union is patterned upon the union of God with his people who are his bride, Christ with his church. Within marriage, husbands are to exercise a role of self-sacrificial headship and wives a posture of godly submission to their husbands. This institution points us to our hope of Christ returning to claim his bride, making marriage a living picture of the gospel of grace.

This study will comprise three main parts. First, we consider what kind of “thing” marriage is. This may seem a strange beginning, but it is foundational to our study. Next, we discuss the point or purpose of marriage. Finally, we ask the definitional question: what is marriage?

The Nature of Marriage

Marriage is an Institution of God’s Creation Order

When cultures debate marriage-related questions and discuss the ethics of sexual relationships, there is a fundamental divide between those who consider marriage to be, in its essence, a thing “given” from God, and those who regard it as a cultural construct. In Matthew 19, when Jesus is asked a question about divorce, he begins by affirming the teaching of Genesis 1 and 2:

“Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female [Gen. 1:27] and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh’ [Gen. 2:18]” (Matt. 19:4-5).

By taking us back to Creation, Jesus affirms what Genesis teaches, that the two-part sexuality of humankind (created male and female) and the institution of marriage are a “given” from God. This is “given” in the double sense of “given and non-negotiable” and “given as gift.” Professor Oliver O’Donovan writes that created order is “not negotiable within the course of history” and is part of “that which neither the terrors of chance nor the ingenuity of art can overthrow. It defines the scope of our freedom and the limits of our fears” (Oliver O’Donovan, Resurrection and Moral Order, 2nd ed., 61). Marriage is a good and stable institution. Human cultures may seek to reinvent it or reshape it, but under God it stands as an unchangeable foundation for human life.

Marriage has, of course, many culturally variable expressions. People enter marriage through varied ceremonies and engage in marriage in different ways. But, in its essence, the institution is a part of the Created Order. For this reason, we may explore from the Bible its purpose and definition (see G.W. Bromily, God and Marriage ).

The Purpose of Marriage

Marriage is created that we may serve God through children, through faithful intimacy, and through properly ordered sexual relationships.

It is both theologically important and pastorally helpful to ask the question, “For what purpose has God created marriage?” We naturally begin by asking what hopes and ambitions a particular couple may have as they enter into marriage. But before we do this, it is foundational to ask why God has created the marriage institution. The Bible teaches three main answers to this question. But before we consider them, we should note one over-arching theme: the service of God in his world.

In Genesis 2:15, “The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it.” The man is the gardener; his is the guardian and the farmer in God’s garden. In this context we read in Genesis 2:18, “Then the Lord God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make a helper fit for him.’” A careful study of Scripture establishes what the context here suggests, which is that the problem with the man’s aloneness is not a relational loneliness but rather that there is too great a task to be achieved; the man needs, not so much a companion or a lover (though the woman will be those) but a “helper” to work alongside him in the guarding and farming of the garden (see ch. 7 of Christopher Ash, Marriage: Sex in the Service of God ).

To acknowledge this transforms the study of marriage from a consideration of what pleases us or what we enjoy into a focus upon what will serve the purposes of God. Paradoxically, the most secure and happiest marriages are those that look outwards beyond their own (often stifling) self-absorption (or introspective “coupledom”) to the service of God and others in God’s world, through love of God and neighbor.

Under this over-arching heading of the service of God we may place the three traditional biblical “goods” (or benefits) of marriage: procreation, intimacy, and social order.

Procreation

In Genesis 1:27–28, the creation of humankind as male and female is immediately linked with the blessing that we are to “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over” it. That is to say, the first way in which marriage leads to the service of God is through the procreation, and then the godly nurture, of children. Children are a blessing from God. Not every married couple is given this blessing. When they are not, it is a cause of sadness. A marriage is still a marriage, and can honor God deeply, without children. But we are to esteem the procreation of children as a costly and sacrificial blessing. Our prayer is that children will grow up in “the discipline and instruction of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4) and become—in the language of Genesis 2—fellow-gardeners under God to care for his world.

Sexual desire and delight within marriage are wonderfully affirmed within Scripture (e.g. Proverbs 5:18–19; Song of Songs). To deny the goodness of marriage is to side with the snake in the garden of Eden, when he questions the goodness of God (Gen. 3:1; 1 Tim. 4:1–5).

The relationship of the covenant God with his people is portrayed as a marriage in which the Lord is the husband and the people of God are his bride (e.g. Isa. 62:5). In the New Testament this theme moves into a new key as the marriage of Christ the Bridegroom with the church of Christ, his bride (e.g. Eph. 5:22–33).

Sexual intimacy within marriage is designed to serve God by building a relationship of God-honoring delight and faithfulness, an intimacy that portrays the eschatological intimacy that the whole church of Christ will enjoy with Christ her bridegroom. It would be hard to imagine a higher calling for couples embarking upon marriage (see Timothy and Kathy Keller, The Meaning of Marriage ).

Social Order

The Bible is realistic about the power of sexual desire, both male and female (with all their differences), and the possibilities of chaos and disorder that arise from those desires when they are not channeled in God’s proper order. The seventh commandment’s prohibition of adultery (Exod. 20:14) functions as the tip of an iceberg of teaching in both Old and New Testaments that forbid sexual immorality of all kinds. All sexual intimacy that lies outside of the covenanted union of one man with one woman in marriage comes under the biblical definition of sexual immorality. The Bible protects “nakedness” (sexual nakedness, in the context of sexual arousal) and thereby prohibits pornography, rape, the abuse of women, sex between a man and a man, between a man and many women, between a woman and a woman, between a woman and many men, and between human beings and animals.

This boundary around sexual expression is a good and necessary protection of sexual order in any society. When it is broken, and especially when it is broken by a whole culture, sexual chaos ensues, and lives are desperately damaged.

The Definition of Marriage

Marriage is the voluntary sexual and public social union of one man and one woman, from different families. This union is patterned upon the union of God with his people who are his bride, Christ with his church. Intrinsic to this union is God’s calling to lifelong exclusive sexual faithfulness (see chs. 11–15 in Christopher Ash, Marriage: Sex in the Service of God ).

We may summarize the Bible’s definition in terms of the following elements.

Marriage is a voluntary union. The Bible condemns rape and forced marriage (e.g. 2 Sam. 13:14). A man and a woman need to give their consent to be married. With this consent they agree each to give to the other all that they are as sexual beings (1 Cor. 7:2–4). Such consent ought to be given with some understanding of the nature of the institution into which they both enter.

Marriage is a public union. While the intimacy is, and must be, private, the nature of the union is to be public. The man and the woman promise before witnesses that each will be faithful to the other until one of them dies.

Unmarried cohabitations labor under an ambiguity about what exactly the man and the woman have consented to. Often there are different understandings between the two of them. But when a man and a woman marry, there is no such uncertainty. Each has publicly pledged their lifelong faithfulness before the wider society in which they live. In a healthy society, this means that societal support is given for a married couple. There is a social cost to pay by a husband or a wife who breaks a marriage.

One man and one woman: heterosexual

Marriage is between a man and a woman. This is how God has created humankind. A society may call a relationship between two people of the same sex “marriage”; but in the sight of God it can never be so.

One man and one woman: monogamous

Marriage is between one man and one woman. Polygamy in the Old Testament is recorded but never affirmed. Jesus explicitly affirms the Genesis order of one man and one woman (e.g. Matt. 19:5–6 “no longer two , but one flesh”).

From different families

The Bible consistently condemns incest, which is sexual intimacy between those who are too closely related, whether by blood (kinship) or through marriage (affinity). Leviticus 18 is the clearest and most sustained Old Covenant text addressing this question. 1 Corinthians 5 condemns the sexual relationship of a man with his stepmother.

Christians have not always agreed either about the rationale underlying the incest prohibitions or about just where the incest lines ought to be drawn. The most likely answer is that the rationale is to protect the family circle from the destructive confusions arising when someone views a near relative (other than their spouse) as a potential sexual partner. If this rationale is correct, then the precise extent of the incest prohibitions may depend on what counts, in a particular culture, as “close family” (See Christopher Ash, Marriage: Sex in the Service of God , 266–271).

The pattern of Christ with his church

Three New Testament passages explicitly address husbands and wives: Ephesians 5:22–33; Colossians 3:18–19; 1 Peter 3:1–7. In these we are taught that husbands are to exercise a role of self-sacrificial headship and wives a posture of godly submission to their husbands. Such a pattern is widely derided and dismissed in much contemporary culture and in some of the church.

In considering this question, we ought to begin with the idea of “order” or “arrangement” (Greek taxis ) from which the word “submission” is derived. In the New Testament this concept is applied to (a) the submission of all things to God and to Christ (e.g. Eph. 1:22), (b) the submission of Christ to God (1 Cor. 15:24–28), (c) the submission of the believer to God (e.g. James 4:7), (d) the submission of the believer to the civil authorities (e.g. Rom. 13:1–7), (e) the submission of slaves to masters (e.g. Titus 2:9), (f) the submission of church members to their leaders (e.g. Heb. 13:17), (g) the submission of children to parents (e.g. Eph. 6:1), and (h) the submission of wives to husbands (e.g. Eph. 5:24). Submission of slaves to masters is the odd one out in this list, for it has no theological grounding in creation, and in fact the Bible radically undermines the institution of slavery.

The submission of a wife is to be a voluntary submission, an expression of her godly submission to God. The headship of a husband is to be a costly headship, patterned on Christ’s love for his church. At its best this pattern is beautiful and life-giving. It may be subverted (1) by a tyrannical husband, (2) by a wife who fails to be a partner with her husband but is simply passive, (3) by a rebellious wife, and (4) by a husband who abdicates his responsibilities.

Lifelong faithfulness

Faithfulness, or faithful love, is to lie at the heart of the marriage relationship. Marriage is not at root about our feelings (which come and go) but about keeping a promise. Scripture speaks of marriage as a covenant to which God is witness (e.g. Mal. 2:14). When a man and a woman marry (whether or not they are believers), they are joined together by God (e.g. Mark 10:8,9). Neither one of the couple nor any other person is to break what God has joined.

Conclusion: Marriage and the Grace of God

The gospel of Jesus offers grace for sexual failures. After a list that focuses especially on sexual sins, Paul writes, “And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:11). We are all scarred by sexual sins, whether our own, in what we have thought, what we have seen, what we have read, or what we have done. In the gospel we find forgiveness and the joy of being washed clean. Joyfully, we hold out to others the cleansing we ourselves have found in Christ.

Join our newsletter

Christian Life
Denominations
Jesus' Life

A Christian view of marriage

Christians believe that marriage is a beautiful symbol of God's love for his bride, the church.

Read time: 2 minutes and 57 seconds

Christians believe that the binding partnership of marriage is a powerful symbol of the relationship between Christ and the Church.

Getting married is a public demonstration of love and lifelong commitment between two people. For Christians, there is an extra dimension – marriage is part of a pattern of life established by God when he created humanity. He recognised that it was better for the first man, Adam, if he had a partner, Eve. Christians believe marriage is a partnership of love made deeper through sex. Jesus acknowledged this in the Bible book, Matthew, when he said, ‘ for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. They are no longer two but one...’. Many Christians believe sex is so significant that people should wait until they marry before sleeping together. Like many people, Christians also believe a marriage is the best place to bring up children.

Christians believe that the binding partnership of marriage is a powerful symbol of the relationship between Christ and the Church. In the last book of the Bible, Revelation, the Church is described as being dressed for Christ like a bride for her bridegroom. This means that – when at its best – marriage can show us a glimpse of the faithful, enduring love which God has towards his people. Of course sometimes marriages fall far short of this ideal.

Continued below...

The Christian marriage ceremony is rich in symbolism. The bride and bridegroom make promises to God and to each other. They exchange rings as a sign of those promises. They commit to stay together in good times and bad. It is a commitment for life. Prayers are said for the newlyweds recognising the joys and difficulties ahead and asking for God’s support.

Almost everyone is entitled to get married in an Anglican church, whether they go to church or not. Couples need to show one of seven connections to the church in which they want to marry. A couple can also marry in a non-conformist church such as a Baptist, Methodist or United Reformed Church.

But marriage is not for everyone. Singleness, with its freedom and flexibility, is described in the Bible as a ‘gift’. It is not a second-best option: Jesus himself did not get married.

Singleness, with its freedom and flexibility, is described in the Bible as a ‘gift’.

All marriages endure difficult moments but Christians believe that marriages are for life. Of course some relationships sadly break down and the couple separate. Some Christians believe that because the marriage vows are unbreakable, the couple remain married in God’s eyes. This is the belief in the Roman Catholic Church although a marriage can be declared null (as if it never happened) in some circumstances – for example, if the couple never had sex. But many Christians have accepted divorce and remarriage in some circumstances such as unfaithfulness, desertion or where one partner is subjecting the other to violence. Christians think it is right to respond to such traumas with compassion and understanding.

The issue of same-sex marriage is a controversial one in the Christian church. There is no one clear view. Some Christians support the marriage of same-sex couples, and some churches will carry out same-sex weddings. Others will offer a blessing for a same-sex couple but will not marry them. Other Christians believe that celibacy is the best path for those who are same-sex attracted and that marriage can only be between a man and woman.

Whilst it can be distorted and misused, sex is in essence a good gift from God to be enjoyed by humans.

A marriage based on equality, mutuality, and love is a gift from God and something to be celebrated.

Can I be married in church?

Information on how to go about getting married in church.

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

We're Hiring!
Help Center

HISTORY OF CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE

The history of Christian marriage is as complex and myriad as any other history in the world, with the meaning of the word " marriage " having altered and morphed as generations of faithful Christians have wondered to define for themselves the nature of a holy life lived out in the midst of pitfalls of their daily life. All Orthodox teachings and texts define marriage as a sacrament or a "mystery" of the Holy Church. At first glance, this definition may appear strange; marriage is practiced by all the Christians and non-Christians alike, by atheists, by generations of human beings who never heard what the word "sacrament" means. Birth, growth, marriage, begetting children, growing old and dying are the laws of nature which God established and blessed; but marriage particularly is singled out by the Church. The very special blessing which it bestows upon the man and the woman who gets married is called a "sacrament,". Our understandings of Christian marriage over the course of the last two millennia have been interfaced by the varied different contexts of the societal and cultural interactions of the act of marriage. Looking into the historical development of marriage over the centuries will help us to better understand our own contemporary understandings of Christian marriage.

Related Papers

David M Friel

Does the Christian faith espouse the model of mutuality within marriage or does it embrace rather the model of male headship? Discussion of this question concerning the essential structure of married life has emerged most often in the fields of scripture studies, sociology, and pastoral theology, while comparatively little consideration has been given to the question from the standpoint of liturgical theology. This presentation explores a wide range of marriage rituals from Judaism, the Christian East, and the Christian West in search of evidence that supports the notion of marriage as a partnership between equals or as an institution of which the husband is the head. The witness of the liturgical rites for marriage throughout history suggests that these two models are better harmonized than dichotomized.

Stetson Glass

Michael P Foley

Light & Life Publishing

Fr. Philip LeMasters

This book places marriage and sexuality within the context of the Eucharistic worship, spirituality, and theology of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Laura Lieber

Russell Martin

emmanuel fritsch

Judith Evans-Grubbs

Michael S Carlin

Family, Gender Roles, and Marriage in the Ancient Near East and the Greco-Roman World

Christopher A Perry

Family, Gender Roles, and Marriage in the Ancient Near East and Greco-Roman World A Brief Investigation and Analysis of the History, Culture, and Socio-Ethics of Family, Gender Roles, and Marriage in the Ancient Near East and Greco Roman World in Contrast to the Gospels, the Pauline Corpus, and Other Selected New Testament Writings

RELATED PAPERS

Rantoa Letsosa Rantoa Letsosa

Featured Articles

4 ways complementarian churches can be better for women, paying attention to fatherhood: why i stepped down from pastoral ministry, a single testimony changes generations, like what you’re reading.

Priscilla Papers

Get notified when new issues are online.

CBE Abuse Resource

Preparing for Equality: Perspectives on Christian Marriage

The research resulting in this article focuses on evangelical churches in New Zealand, examining both the practice and content of their pre-marriage counselling sessions. Two competing visions of marriage relations—egalitarianism and complementarianism—representing different interpretations of the Bible are embedded within Christian pre-marriage counselling discourse. Here, sociological research and theology intersect. This article examines how differing interpretations of Scripture shape marriage advice given to engaged couples. The study’s interview participants, whose pseudonyms are John, Stephen, William, Sharon, and married couple Ron and Shivani, are leaders who facilitate pre-marriage counselling within their evangelical churches.

I analyze the participants’ discussion of their personal theology, examining to what extent it shapes their premarital instruction. Theological themes emerged in interviews, including complementarian and egalitarian theologies, evangelicalism, fundamentalism, and its association with destructive beliefs resulting in violence against women. Theological discussion of these themes is situated within a feminist framework, drawing on the comprehensive work of two feminist sociologists who are also theologians—Elaine Storkey and Fran Porter. 1

In what follows, I define evangelicalism and fundamentalism, and compare and contrast interviewees’ personal use of Scripture within marriage counselling. Next, I outline complementarian theology, observing both feminism’s historical reaction to it and its association with violence against women. Finally, I examine interviewees’ use of egalitarian theology as well as the arguments of evangelical feminists.

Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism

A definitional haze surrounds the word “evangelical.” Confusion around this term became apparent in the interviews. Evangelicalism is not a denomination; it is a conceptual unity that designates a group of Christians who hold to certain beliefs. According to David Bebbington, four qualities have been the consistent marks of evangelical religion: “conversionism, the belief that lives need to be changed; activism, the expression of the gospel in effort; biblicism, a particular regard for the Bible; and what may be called crucicentrism, a stress on the sacrifice of Christ on the cross. Together they form a quadrilateral of priorities that is the basis of Evangelicalism.” 2

Two interviewees were cautious of the term “evangelical” because they viewed it as associated with fundamentalism. When asked how participants would describe their theology, John claimed he is “more comfortable describing it as ‘orthodox’ these days rather than ‘evangelical.’” He states:

One of the reasons I’m uncomfortable now with modern day evangelicalism is that it’s become much more fundamentalist in the last ten or fifteen years. . . . I think, these days, for example in America, evangelicalism is associated with certain political beliefs. It’s associated with a very fundamentalist understanding of the Bible. So you can read off the Bible certain rules about living, rather than having to interpret it.

John explains “orthodox” as theology related to “biblical standards” in which the Bible is “normative for one’s faith.” Similarly, Stephen describes himself as both “orthodox” and “evangelical,” adding “but I wouldn’t say conservative evangelical.” William regards himself as “evangelical,” commenting that “fundamental can mean some very rigid views that I wouldn’t necessarily go along with.”

It is evident that John, Stephen, and William are cautious of fundamentalism and theological conservatism. Thus, it is important to distinguish evangelicalism from fundamentalism. Fundamentalists strictly adhere to a literal interpretation of Scripture; whereas evangelicalism pursues biblical interpretation that addresses inevitable gaps between the contexts Scripture was written in and those we read it in. 3 Stephen brings attention to this process of biblical interpretation. He observes that much of the complementarian premarital counselling material he encounters is “American.” He states he “doesn’t agree with it,” questioning its handling of Scripture that projects “first-century social context” into our postmodern context. Stephen asserts this projection does not need “to be part of the way we understand men and women.”

Fundamentalism, which arose out of a perceived need to defend orthodox Christianity in the nineteenth century, consists of “five fundamentals of the Christian faith.” 4 One of these fundamentals is the inerrancy of Scripture, resulting for fundamentalists in a belief in the literal interpretation of Scripture. Today the fundamentalist movement exists in two forms: hyper-fundamentalism, which is found mostly in extreme conservatism in America, and fundamentalism, which has abandoned its anti-intellectualism and militant tone but has retained an unswerving commitment to the authority of Scripture and belief in its literal interpretation. Michael Habets argues that this latter group of fundamentalists has traded in its name for another one—evangelical. 5 Similarly, Sally Gallagher’s U.S. study, as well as my own findings, reveals that evangelicalism is both conservative and progressive. Approximately one quarter of evangelicals in Gallagher’s study identify themselves as “affiliated with a pentecostal church or as part of the charismatic movement.” 6 Gallagher points out that, in America at least, “evangelicals, fundamentalists and pentecostal Christians are often identified as ‘conservative Protestants’ and ‘biblical literalists.’” 7

Gallagher’s American evangelical participants abide by a definition of evangelicalism which includes “the responsibility of husbands to be the spiritual head of the household.” 8 This belief, guided by biblical literalism, makes Stephen and William suspicious of the term “evangelical.” But Ron and Shivani, who identify as evangelical, endorse male headship and female submission based on literal interpretation of Scripture, and attend a pentecostal church. This supports John’s observation that fundamentalism within evangelical denominations is “growing [in New Zealand] because of the influence of American theology and politics.” Literal interpretation of the Bible within conservative evangelicalism shares similarities with fundamentalism. While Ron and Shivani represent a theological conservatism (consistent with America’s evangelical culture), William, Stephen, John, and Sharon represent a more progressive evangelicalism evident in New Zealand church contexts. Endorsement of these differing theologies by New Zealand churches has implications for relationship advice offered through Christian pre-marriage counselling.

Complementarianism and Feminism

Feminist theologians and sociologists often view evangelical complementarian relationship ideals as an expression of institutionalized patriarchy. Complementarianism, according to Gallagher, is the most hegemonic, well documented, and criticized Christian tradition in which gender relations are organized by the principles of hierarchy and subordination. 9 This tradition locates its origins in select biblical passages, such as the Apostle Paul’s teaching that women should “submit to their own husbands as to the Lord” (Eph 5:22) and should not “teach or have authority over a man” in the church because “Adam was created first” and Eve “was deceived” (1 Tim 2:12–14). While elements of these teachings were eventually muted, Gallagher’s U.S. based grouping shows that the majority of conservative evangelicals today “continue to believe that God’s design for family is a benign patriarchy set within a broader vision of a hierarchically ordered universe.” 10

The New Zealand-produced pre-marriage counselling resource used by Ron and Shivani, Marriage Works , 11 reinforces this belief with references to “God’s order in marriage.” Ron and Shivani state that Marriage Works is biblically based, and “there are references back to the NT where a husband should lead, you know, what a wife’s role is.” This view contrasts with the other interviewees whose pre-marriage advice is shaped by egalitarian theology. Feminist Christians have been swift to challenge a biblical mandate for hierarchical marriage. Storkey presents a fuller picture of Christianity and gender, noting how feminists have been pointing out for fifty years that the patriarchy afflicting all religions is evident in Christianity’s long history and understanding of gender attitudes, family roles, and theological interpretations. The existence of patriarchy, for her, is essential to the discussion of changing “traditional” gender relations within Christianity. She remarks:

It’s easy to see the strong, set lines of patriarchy in the public face of the Church. Centuries of male popes, patriarchs, cardinals, archbishops, bishops, priests, clergy, elders, and theologians have led the flock, exegeted the Scriptures, written the agendas and preached the sermons. 12

Storkey refers to Eph 5:23, “the husband is the head of the wife,” among a handful of other passages, whose literal interpretation is “evidence of entrenched inequality, with headship for the man and obedience from the woman.” 13 She remarks that the repercussions of this view of headship have included the “subjection of wives to husbands.” 14

Feminism in the second half of the twentieth century argued for Scripture to be read with ancient cultural contexts in mind, with a focus on better biblical hermeneutics. Some feminists advocated leaving the faith, convinced that gender abuse is supported by theology and leaves no space for gender equality. Others pursued an “uprooting of centuries of patriarchy” through the revisiting and dismantling of “language, worship, authority, and religious symbols.” 15 Storkey notes how Christian feminists reflect a wide spectrum of perspectives and approaches. For example, biblical scholar Catherine Clark Kroeger melded a conservative view of Scripture with a fresh approach to biblical interpretation. 16 Other writers suggested various forms of canonical revision to relocate the weight and meaning of authority. While “post-Christian” Daphne Hampson and Mary Daly rejected the “biblical God” as destructive to women, Phyllis Trible urged careful biblical exegesis, believing that the Bible could be “liberated from patriarchy.” 17 Since those early days, feminists have continued to develop these debates. Storkey remarks that despite their own failings, “most Christians around the world believe in a different God, compassionate and loving, who abhors injustice against women.” 18

Ephesians 5:21–25: A Complementarian Reading

The recurrent reference to Eph 5:21–25 suggests its central significance as a hotly debated biblical passage, and one that requires careful reflection and analysis. There are two main strands of interpretation of this passage associated with different theological positions—complementarian and egalitarian. The passage is as follows:

21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.

22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Saviour. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her. . . . (Eph 5:21–25 NIVUK)

One complementarian scholar argues that this passage reflects “God’s created order of headship and submission” and that these are to be the roles for husbands and wives within contemporary marriage. 19 He views headship as a husband’s “responsibility and unique role of leadership,” stating that a wife’s “submission is not slavish . . . it’s free, it’s willing.” 20 Although he admits that some find his teachings to be “obscene,” this scholar endorses this passage as a vision of biblical manhood and womanhood. Addressing the meaning of “head” and its translation into English, he argues:

Even if you give “head” the meaning “source” the most natural interpretation of these verses is that husbands are called by God to take primary responsibility for Christ-like, servant leadership and protection and provision in the home. And wives are called to honor and affirm the husband’s leadership and help carry it through according to her gifts. 21

Various egalitarian interpreters view this highly debated passage differently, as explained later in this article.

Complementarianism and Violence against Women

In the light of biblical interpretation, one question that has attracted attention is the relationship between male authority and gendered violence. Storkey considers this relationship: “Could it be linked to an immutable authoritarian theology where ‘someone needs to be in charge, someone needs to have the final authority and that someone is the man?’” 22 This is consistent with Stephen’s concern that elements of complementarian relationship ideology might contribute to domestic violence. Stephen states:

I know women who have been beaten in relationships in years past, and the church has told them “stay and put up” and “you made your bed, now lay in it,” that sort of thing, which often other women have told them, which just appals me. My intention and my action is not the oppression of women in marriage relationships. That’s not necessarily that gender roles oppress people, but I think sometimes they can. I think the church has taught things in the past that I find really unhelpful. I can’t talk about it without saying, we had one of our members who married about six years ago to someone who we weren’t sure about—re-married—and he later murdered her when she left. . . . I’d be concerned if the church has been seen as contributing to a theory that men should oppress their wives or should require certain behaviour from their wives.

Stephen is concerned that features of complementarian relationship ideals might contribute to violence against women. To combat this, he encourages “an equality model in our church” and he states that for years their church has actively supported the anti-domestic violence White Ribbon Campaign. 23 As Stephen alludes to, the complementarian belief of male authority has implications for marriage. In some cases, the combination of a relational power imbalance and daily stressors in marriage can be an excuse for violence. Pepper Schwartz gives evidence for this, referring to a study that shows that a common argument preceding wife battering is about housework. Schwartz says, “The homemaking role is a surrogate for the wife’s display of obedience to and support of the husband, and any crack the violent husband sees in that picture can drive an angry and insecure man to a physical attack. . . .” 24

When authors Owen Blackburn and Pamela Blackburn discuss male headship in the Marriage Works resource, they state, “a woman whose husband dominates or abuses her . . . is pretty quickly going to resist and defy such treatment.” 25 They state that in such a marriage, “there will be disharmony, hurt, rejection, and it will fall apart.” 26 They warn that husbands should not lead in a domineering manner. In fact, in the Marriage Works mentor’s guidebook, Blackburn and Blackburn encourage the mentor to look out for men who likely “will not want to hear” such teaching because their “fathers dominated their mothers” or they “have a tendency to be arrogant.” 27 Thus, the authors encourage the mentors to “be prepared to deliver some straight talking” to these men. There is, however, no instruction or advice given to women to leave an abusive marriage or stand up to a domineering husband. The absence of this instruction for women suggests husbands have more power or entitlement to negotiate relationship dynamics.

Furthermore, Storkey points out that intimate-partner violence is often associated with an overt of subconscious belief in male privilege and entitlement. 28 Overcoming violence against women begins with cultivating the belief that males and females are of equal worth. Changed thinking leads to changed cultures that empower healthier communities.

Egalitarianism and Evangelical Feminism

Egalitarian theology—often referred to as “biblical equality”—lies at the heart of evangelical feminism and endorses mutual submission and shared leadership within marriage. Contemporary evangelical feminists claim that Christianity “is not hopelessly patriarchal, but offers ideological tools and organizational resources to transform and undermine gender inequality.” 29

Gallagher asserts that egalitarianism has a long history. Feminist Christians draw from the Apostle Paul’s declaration that, “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28 NIVUK). They point to a thread of teaching on mutuality (and the wider biblical narrative of equality), partnership, and women’s gifting that has wound its way through the centuries and across a range of Christian communities. Efforts to reclaim and interpret this strand of biblical discourse as evidence of a redemptive movement pointing toward a new model of community are at the center of the contemporary biblical or evangelical feminist project. 30 Similarly, Gallagher states that although a thread of discourse supporting partnership and mutuality between women and men “has a long history within Christianity,” it is not until the nineteenth century that it emerges as “a viable alternative to hierarchy as the basis of domestic relations.” 31

Based on an analysis of evangelical discourse on gender hierarchy and equality, Gallagher argues that in spite of its relative lack of organizational resources, contemporary evangelical feminism thrives as a subculture within a subculture for four reasons. First, it is supported by a growing body of theological, exegetical, and historical studies. Next, it is consistent with the normative ideal of egalitarianism in the broader culture. Third, it represents an effective gender strategy within the majority of dual-earner evangelical households. Finally, egalitarian rhetoric defines a cultural and ideological space in which feminist evangelicals may find meaningful religious identity and community. 32 Nevertheless, Gallagher states that explicitly feminist perspectives remain marginalized within evangelicalism because “gender persists as a central and effective element of the boundary work that maintains evangelical subculture and identity.” 33 Stephen, William, John, and Sharon discuss their egalitarian theological positions; most of them refer to Eph 5 in their discussion.

Ephesians 5:21–25: An Egalitarian Reading

An egalitarian reading of this passage examines the context in which it was originally written, a Greco-Roman culture where subordination of wives to husbands was the overarching norm. Andrew Lincoln asserts, “this is not a timeless and universal prescription for marriage though the ages”; rather, this “vision of marriage is conditioned by the cultural assumption of its time.” 34 Egalitarian theologies see the command in v. 21 for Christians to “submit to one another” as setting the tone for the ensuing household code. Lincoln calls Christians to appreciate what this passage attempts to accomplish in its own setting:

For husbands and wives to have carried out their duties under the guidelines of mutual submission, and a wife to have subordinated herself voluntarily to a husband who cherishes her with a self-sacrificial love, would have been to experience a very different reality than that suggested by the traditional discussions of household management. 35

According to Walter Elwell, these counter-cultural Christian household codes emerged when “Christians were conscious of the need to adjust to living in the Greco-Roman world without necessarily disrupting the status quo.” 36

Briefly mentioned above, theological debate over the interpretation of the word “head” (v. 23) continues. 37 “Head” translates the Greek word kephal ē , which can also be translated as “source” or “origin.” 38 Therefore, this line of exegetical critique argues that Paul’s concern “is not hierarchical but relational—the unique relationships that are predicated on one’s being the source of the other’s existence.” 39 Gordon Fee argues the word “head” is a reference to the creation account where Eve’s life originates from Adam’s rib; thus, “the man is the source of the woman’s life.” 40 Most egalitarians appeal to the whole of Scripture—the biblical narrative—to further clarify passages such as this.

Stephen and William refer to an egalitarian understanding of Eph 5. Stephen clearly establishes that his theology is founded upon an egalitarian reading of Scripture, stating that “the heart of making a marriage work” lies in the biblical instruction of Eph 5:21 to “submit to one another.” Stephen criticizes the practice of male headship, observing this as a cultural practice “in the first century.” He rejects male headship as a “Christian value,” suggesting that Christianity is “trying to reflect what was [culturally] common in those days.” Stephen’s theology also emphasizes the “attitude of Jesus” who “treated women as people of great dignity and worth, quite differently from people around him in a first century context.” William agrees, claiming that Jesus, not a husband, is the head of a marriage. He states, “My basic view is that God wants a couple to be one, and leadership within that is where each is submitting to the other . . . it’s the basis of Eph 5, that couples submit, one to the other.”

Similarly, John’s egalitarian theology focuses on the nature of God. He says, “I think a sophisticated theology understands that the fundamental shape of God—Trinity—is primarily relational and not hierarchical. And that’s what makes the understanding of the Trinity absolutely unique in theological circles. So if you understood that, your theology just couldn’t remain hierarchical in that way.”

Sharon explains how, when she married in 1974, Christian marriage discourse was shaped by books with titles like The Total Woman and The Christian Wife , which Sharon claims espoused a “constructed viewpoint” that the wife was “not just submissive, but subservient.” She states this view is constructed because “you could argue many different viewpoints from the Bible.” Later, Sharon explains that, although an egalitarian relationship is “the ideal,” she acknowledges that a literalist reading of Eph 5 can negatively “impact” the realization of equality in a marriage. Sharon’s conclusion that “women will probably have to work harder to be able to get an egalitarian relationship” reinforces that a commitment to critical interpretation of the Bible takes work, but is an essential ingredient of a Christian egalitarian marriage.

In summary, it is important to examine underpinning theological convictions embedded in pre-marriage counselling resources. Since advice given to couples from leaders sits within wider theological discourses that contain differing messages about gender equality and inequality, evangelical churches, including those in New Zealand, must develop pre-marital resources that invite couples to reflect critically on wider ideologies and theologies that may be informing beliefs about gender. Theologians have pointed out that literalist interpretations of Scripture, which endorse male superiority and perpetuate beliefs associated with violence against women, are embedded in complementarian relationship ideals. Evangelical feminist discourse highlights the need for strategies couples can utilize to practice equality within their marriage. Pre-marriage counsellors facilitate discussion with couples in a safe, non-judgmental environment, and it would be wrong to force beliefs upon someone. However, creating a space for couples—through mediated discussion—where they can grapple with themes such as egalitarianism, complementarianism, and the implications these ideologies have on their relationship could be useful and potentially transformational. Overall, I agree with Porter who asserts that, “the task of ending women’s subordination involves creating something new.” 41

1. Elaine Storkey, Scars across Humanity: Understanding and Overcoming Violence against Women (London: SPCK, 2015); Fran Porter, It Will Not Be Taken Away from Her: A Feminist Engagement with Women’s Christian Experience (London: Darton, Longman & Todd, 2004). 2. David W. Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s (New York: Taylor and Francis, 2003), 16; see also Mimi Haddad, “Egalitarians: A New Path to Liberalism? Or Integral to Evangelical DNA?,” Priscilla Papers 29, no. 1 (Winter 2015): 14–20. 3. Daniel J. Hays and Scott J. Duvall, Journey into God’s Word: Your Guide to Understanding and Applying the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2008), 12. 4. Michael Habets, “Fundamentalism: Its Roots, our Heritage,” The Pacific Journal (1995): 6. 5. Habets, “Fundamentalism,” 6. 6. Sally K. Gallagher, “The Marginalization of Evangelical Feminism,” Sociology of Religion 3, no. 65 (2004): 217. 7. Gallagher, “Marginalization of Evangelical Feminism,” 216. 8. Gallagher, “Marginalization of Evangelical Feminism,” 217. 9. Gallagher, “Marginalization of Evangelical Feminism,” 218. 10. Gallagher, “Marginalization of Evangelical Feminism,” 219. 11. Owen Blackburn and Pamela Blackburn, Marriage Works: How to Build Your Marriage to Last Your Lifetime (Auckland: C.L.C., 2010). 12. Storkey, Scars across Humanity , 204. 13. Storkey, Scars across Humanity , 209. 14. Storkey, Scars across Humanity , 209. 15. Storkey, Scars across Humanity , 209. 16. See, for example, Catherine Clark Kroeger, “1 Timothy 2:12—A Classicist’s View,” in Women, Authority and the Bible , ed. Alvera Mickelsen (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1986), 225–44. 17. Storkey, Scars across Humanity , 210. 18. Storkey, Scars across Humanity , 210. 19. John Piper, Desiring God (New York: Multnomah, 1986). 20. Piper, Desiring God . 21. John Piper, “Husbands Who Love Like Christ and the Wives Who Submit to Them” (sermon presented on June 11, 1989). 22. Storkey, Scars Across Humanity , 208. 23. See https://WhiteRibbon.org.nz . 24. Pepper Schwartz, Love Between Equals: How Peer Marriage Really Works (New York: Free, 1994), 122. 25. Blackburn and Blackburn, Marriage Works , 88. 26. Blackburn and Blackburn, Marriage Works , 88. 27. Blackburn and Blackburn, Marriage Works , 34. 28. Storkey, Scars Across Humanity , 206. 29. Gallagher, “Marginalization of Evangelical Feminism,” 216. 30. Gallagher, “Marginalization of Evangelical Feminism,” 218; see also William J. Webb, Slaves, Women and Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2001). 31. Gallagher, “Marginalization of Evangelical Feminism,” 215. 32. Gallagher, “Marginalization of Evangelical Feminism,” 216. 33. Gallagher, “Marginalization of Evangelical Feminism,” 216. 34. Andrew T. Lincoln, Ephesians , WBC 42 (Dallas: Word, 1990), 391. 35. Lincoln, Ephesians , 391. 36. Walter A. Elwell, ed., “Egalitarianism,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001), 449. 37. See, for example, Alan F. Johnson, “A Meta-Study of the Debate over the Meaning of ‘Head’ ( Kephalē ) in Paul’s Writings,” Priscilla Papers 20, no. 4 (Autumn 2006): 21–29; Haley Gabrielle, “ Kephalē as Fountainhead in 1 Corinthians 11:3,” Priscilla Papers 32, no. 3 (Summer 2018): 21–27. 38. Gordon D. Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians , rev. ed., NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2014); Elwell, “Egalitarianism,” 449; see also Alan F. Johnson, “A Meta-Study of the Debate over the Meaning of ‘Head’ ( Kephal ē ) in Paul’s Writings,” Priscilla Papers 20, no. 4 (Autumn 2006): 21–29; Gabrielle, “ Kephalē as Fountainhead in 1 Corinthians 11:3.” 39. Elwell, “Egalitarianism,” 449.\ 40. Fee, First Epistle to the Corinthians , 565. 41. Porter, It Will Not Be Taken Away from Her, 16.

Sign Up for CBE's Newsletter

CBE International 122 W. Franklin Ave, Suite 610 Minneapolis, MN 55404

[email protected] 612.872.6898

CBE Tax ID #: 41-1599315

Connect with CBE

Bookstore Egalitarian Directory Planned Giving Scholarships for Women Leadership Financials Privacy Policy

News & Blog
Academic Journal

Our Members Careers Contact Us

We use cookies to enhance our website for you. Proceed if you agree to this policy or learn more about it.

Essay Database >
Essay Examples >
Essays Topics >
Essay on Family

Good Example Of Essay On Christian Marriage

Type of paper: Essay

Topic: Family , Relationships , Character , Love , Marriage , Ethics , Social Issues , Religion

Published: 03/30/2023

ORDER PAPER LIKE THIS

There are considerable scholars who link relationship adjustment to individual functioning such as personal character and also link virtues to family and church institutions’ functioning and stability. Within this group of scholars, they argue that relationship adjustment is linked to general and marital virtues namely other-centeredness (Cloutier 134). In theorizing the process through which spouses create healthy relationships, scholars must move from the technical concept of functional marriage and look to the successful use of other essential components such as communication skills that largely depend on the virtues and personal character. Virtues are the personal qualities and the character strengths of a person. The purpose of this paper is examining if virtues and personal character have a direct link to relationship adjustment. It also examines if growth and development of married love as related to the moral virtue and character of a person, why character and virtues are important components of a marriage, how Christian Marriage is different from other types of marriage such as secular marriages based on Christian character and what it means to say that a Christian family is a domestic church. In addition, this paper analyzes Cloutier’s views of church and family role in the development of moral character and virtue. In marriage, virtues go beyond the relatively simple perspective of conflict and dissatisfaction to more complex facets like relational health. These include motivations for partners, personal meaning, and character strengths. To different groups of people, marriage means different things depending on the participants’ culture, time and people involved. No single culture is capable of imposing its ideas of marriage on another culture and religion. The Christian marriage, in particular, is different from other marriages such as secular marriages and other types of religious marriages due to its commitment to character and personal character of the couples involved in the union. Christian marriages, besides love between man and wife, have a commitment to virtues such as compassion, forgiveness, respect, mercy and selflessness. It is character and personality in a marriage that is necessary to create and sustain a useful marriage and relationships as they play a significant role in directing the affairs of the family. It also has a clear description of husband, wife, and children roles so that the home is not run in patronizing, condescending and dictatorial ways but in accordance with the true character and personality of Christ that Christians emulate as the head of the church (Cloutier 148). Respect and humility as marital virtues are imperative components in wives submitting to the authority of the husband and children obeying the authority structure in the family. Christian families are similar to churches with the authority structure that is based on the Biblical principles of Christ being the head just as the husband is the head of his household and runs his family on the concepts of respect, submission, and mutual love. The church is most often supported because people generally care about the family and were they not to care about the family, good churches would not exist (Hauerwas 277). The family plays a significant role in the development and enhancement of the character that is necessary for a marriage to succeed. However, it is only important in the primary development of marriage development to the extent that such a role does not turn the family into an idolatrous institution where it becomes the only source of wisdom, knowledge, and dogma in the society. Families and the Church awaken as well as reinforce the personality and character that people have learned from the outside world. This would make the family and the church dangerous institutions in their roles in the moral stability of the society which is likened to the character by Hauerwas (273). The examination of the interrelationships between character and virtues and marriage provides critical information that broadens relationships adjustment to the positive so that professionals can create effective interventions among couples that are experiencing marital distress or those planning to get married and have a more effective relationship in marriage. It also helps professionals to help couples to communicate well as individual selves as well as partners. It helps in providing meaningful and contextually-sensitive clues on the contribution of virtues and character on the interpersonal well-being in a family.

Cloutier, David. Love, Reason, and God's Story: An Introduction to Catholic Sexual Ethics. Saint Mary's Press, 2008. Hauerwas, Stanley. "The family as a school for character." Religious Education 80.2 (1985): 272-285.

Cite this page

Share with friends using:

Removal Request

Finished papers: 1018

This paper is created by writer with

ID 270672901

If you want your paper to be:

Well-researched, fact-checked, and accurate

Original, fresh, based on current data

Eloquently written and immaculately formatted

275 words = 1 page double-spaced

Get your papers done by pros!

Other Pages

Example of essay on foreign restrictions on termination, good criminal justice system course work example, good essay on lyric analysis, essay on the memory in decision making, good statement of purpose personal statement example, good commercial math programs research paper example, free civil war and reconstruction essay sample, obesity in united states and texas essay example, drohojowska philip essays examples, good research proposal on hiv and gender, good example of the five stages of human development term paper, ontological argument for the existence of god essays examples, sample essay on mdma and alcohol, good example of tgi fridays marketing mix report, split sentencing research paper, example of essay on what is triangular management how is it related to the contingency approach, good essay about mechanical engineering, free conflict critical thinking example, sample essay on umberson debra and jennifer karas montez social relationships and health a flashpoint for, free essay about ford 2007 10 k, good example of essay on haitis cholera endemic, free medicine essay sample 2, testing the forecasts of the limits to growth essay sample, bargh essays, deadweight essays, coppin essays, cripples essays, browman essays, dispelling essays, dungier essays, blemishes essays, hata essays, goering essays, wounding essays, autopilot essays, tristram essays, isolde essays, photovoltaic effect essays, automotive engineering essays, matt damon essays, retirement pension essays.

Password recovery email has been sent to [email protected]

Use your new password to log in

You are not register!

By clicking Register, you agree to our Terms of Service and that you have read our Privacy Policy .

Now you can download documents directly to your device!

Check your email! An email with your password has already been sent to you! Now you can download documents directly to your device.

or Use the QR code to Save this Paper to Your Phone

The sample is NOT original!

Short on a deadline?

Don't waste time. Get help with 11% off using code - GETWOWED

No, thanks! I'm fine with missing my deadline

Home — Essay Samples — Religion — Christian Marriage — Defining Marriage From The Christian Perspective

Defining Marriage from The Christian Perspective

Categories: Christian Marriage Christian Worldview

About this sample

Words: 1160 |

Published: Nov 5, 2020

Words: 1160 | Pages: 3 | 6 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Dr Jacklynne

Verified writer

Expert in: Religion

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 1060 words

1 pages / 1539 words

2 pages / 884 words

5 pages / 2067 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Christian Marriage

The practice of cohabitation, or living together before marriage, has sparked a lively and ongoing debate in today's society. The dynamics of relationships are constantly evolving, and cohabitation challenges traditional notions [...]

The New Testament has shown to demonstrate the efforts of a young community, and the teachings of Jesus Christ our Savior, and the way He influenced the community in a significant way. The confrontation with the Jewish culture [...]

"What do you sell?” asks Delmar, leaning in to the one-eyed salesman. “The word of God, which, let me tell you, there is damn good money in during these times of woe and want.” The Bible has been misused, misquoted, and [...]

Willa Cather’s Death Comes for the Archbishop depicts the struggle of Father Latour and Father Vaillant to reestablish Catholic authority in their newly formed, New Mexican diocese. They are tasked with righting a territory [...]

In 1742, Jonathan Edwards undertook the task of crafting a sermon that would be powerful in the eyes of both believers and unbelievers. The result exists today as his sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” The sermon [...]

David Walker authors the work, Appeal to the Coloured Citizens of the World (1829) which informs of the system of Chattel slavery in America. In scathing terms, Walker refutes slavery on all points basing his objections on the [...]

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

Christians Holy Orders and Marriage Essay

Introduction.

Holy Orders refer to the sacrament through which Christians receive the authority and love to execute the holy duties of bishops, priests, and ministers of the Church. Christ selected and designed the first Apostles and bishops. Marriage is the Sacrament in which the family is established. The people who receive this great Sacrament end up becoming husband and wife. They are given grace to feel affection for each other and to rise up offspring to God. They become husband and wife until bereavement.

Several individuals have been concerned with the understanding of the sacraments of holy matrimony and the holy orders in the church’s contemporary theology. For instance The Catholic custom educates that sacraments are an outward signs, incidents that are clear in our understanding, of the unseen truth of the almightiest mercy in our entire lives, which is practiced only indirectly by its consequence on our lives. And the customary lessons go further.

Not only do sacraments spot the approaching of grace with a noticeable symbol, but they bring about the realism of refinement by the means they connect people to Jesus Christ within the society which is his house of worship. In the case of the sacraments of occupation this is clear in the way these sacraments begin individuals into a duty, a service, in the church society. Since the outcome of the sacraments is connected to the outer symbol, which should be as comprehensible and fluent as possible. To a great level the society itself is constitutive of the symbol, and is thus vital in calling forward the gifts of the occupation in which each individual is well-known and established in each sacrament of occupation. 1

The Bible pioneers us to a widespread custom of sacramental movement. For example the Hebrew Scriptures do not utilize any phrase that we would interpret as sacrament, but portray acts of worship base on representation. The most significant of these is the Passover festivity, but there are many others. However, in the original demonstration Jesus put together on these obtainable customs of worship, as well as on the narratives and descriptions of the Scriptures in his events and in his teachings. Consequently, the sacraments we rejoice in nowadays are all developed from these events and teachings of Jesus.

That is why we refer to Matrimony Holy Orders as the sacraments of occupation, a statement that originates from the Latin for ‘call’. Meaning that, all of us are called by God. As a matter of fact, we are called at different levels, and increasingly all through our lives, we are called into existence, into human self-respect and accountability, and into certain associations, societies and tasks. Most significantly ,we are called into an cherished spiritual union with God that does not come as expected but must be required and refined within the grace, or a particular outreach, of God.

The contemporary theology of marriage and holy orders

The rites of marriage and priesthood are examined from theological, historical and structural point of view. The complementary offices and responsibilities in the house of worship are differentiated and explained. The pastoral ministry of the ordained is viewed in its ecclesiological context and purpose, with concentration given to a suitable understanding of rank. Special concentration is provided to the sacrament of matrimony, a theology of sexuality, and the association between matrimony and celibacy. 2

The Christian perception is that, despite the fact all of the complex human tradition of disputes and competitions, maltreatment and unfairness, chauvinism and eliminations, matrimony in the mercy of Jesus are massive. They are authorized to exceed all the troubles and to make families and relationships all over the community that bring health and completeness and pleasure both within their individual family circle and in the wider society. 3 This too is a necessary part of building the church, the society of the believers of Jesus. This also is a sacrament of occupation, of the passion to build up the church that contributes in the work of salvation.

The sacraments of priesthood and matrimony are headed towards individual redemption and the building of the People of God. In the early existence of the Church, believers were encouraged to get married to other believers and bring up their off springs according to the illustration presented by Jesus; the matrimony was celebrated as a public issue and was not ruled by Church sacramental rules. It was not until the 12 th century that matrimony was being recognized as a sacrament by Church theologians, although from around four hundred CE Church leaders started their participation in the rite of marriage.

In the sacrament of matrimony, viewed by the Church as symbolizing and dividing the secrecy of the harmony and true love between Christ and the Church, Married couples are to develop in the alertness that their 4 calling is one of assisting one another, in Godliness, in their matrimonial life and in the bringing up the children. This is viewed that, the birth of off springs that may lead to marriage of believers, and the baptism of these children, helps the People of God, the Body of Christ, to be enabled throughout the centuries.

From earlier periods Christian marriage has been seen as being fixed in the notion and realism of self-gift, with this gifting of oneself entirely to the other reflecting the actuality of God, Married partners, together with all people of the Body of Christ, are sustained and reinforced in their vocation through the welcome of the Eucharist. The meaning the Church places on the Eucharist in the blessing of matrimony can be viewed in the Catechism where it states: It is thus proper that the partners should seal their approval to offer themselves to one another through submission of their individual lives by joining it to the offering of Christ that is made present in the Eucharistic sacrifice, and by getting the Eucharist so that, speaking in the similar Body and the similar Blood of Christ, they may form one body of Christ.

However, during earlier periods in the house of worship, coordination of leadership developed to assist the society live its life in the way they felt Jesus identified them to. Finally this offered increase to a number of offices, bishop, presbyter, deacon, which needed a ceremony of ordination so as to complete that office It is about two fifteen CE, with the 5 Apostolic custom of Hippolytus that the house of worship is capable of tracing the original existing rite of ordination, providing a clear sign of the earliest reality and performance of ordination.

When we perceive the complementarily of these sacraments of occupation, we are observing the house of worship in a manner that may be new and thus seems odd. Some may even imagine that this is a more Protestant method of observing our Christian being collectively and at the nature and purpose of the house of worship. So far this organic means of viewing the house of worship and our positions inside it is built right into our sacramental performance and our theology of the sacraments. In addition, essentially and theologically there is no shared exceptionality between the sacraments of Matrimony Holy Orders.

Though the present regulation of the Catholic Church needs celibacy of its priests, that has not all time and all over been so. An individual can be named to assist in the constructing of the holy risen Jesus that entails the society of followers, in two directions. Through him the coordination the society can be brought collectively in the sacrament as sound as being one of individuals who build up the society family by family in weaving the redemptive relations.

Vatican 2 ‘sacraments of Christian ministry’ is reflected in the church’s contemporary theology

The two sacraments of occupation, similar to the entire sacraments, are not just celebrations that occur in a given moment and then are history. They are ongoing and continuously unfolding the truth in our existence as we remain heading towards full salvation and change that move us towards redemption, which is our correct connection with God and thus with one another. The main fundamental calling of a believer is the call into discipleship of Jesus in a society of disciples.

Thus the main fundamental sacrament of calling is in fact baptism, or more precisely initiation which is celebrated in first Eucharist, Confirmation and Baptism. It initiates an individual into the membership and life of the house of worship. Therefore, the solemn festivity simultaneously of the heavenly invitation, of the reply of the person, and of the welcome of the society which is both the local meeting of followers of Jesus, and the great general People of God, the international church. 6

Nothing is actually superior or closer in the association we have with our God more than the Holy Spirit and occupation of the beginning that entails baptism. On the other hand, that profession articulated by initiation, with the purpose of mission of the baptized, appears out in different ways for various individuals. Amongst our 7 sacramental celebrations, we recognize this by a series of festivities shared by all, and by 2 festivities focused on the 2 crucial ways in which the church as society of deliverance in the globe is put together and these 2 are usually identified as the sacraments of vocation.

The Catholic Church’s point of view concerning marriage was considerably customized by the 2nd Vatican convention. The congress adopts an amazingly individuality position which talk of the marriage covenant that is conserved by a permanent personal approval. Despite the fact that they do not make the other ends of nuptials of less value, the true perform of conjugal love, and the scenery of family life which results from it, tend to organize the partners to courageously cooperate with the love of the maker and redeemer who through them they develop and improve their own families.

Reliable married love is taken up into godly love and is enhanced by the redemptive supremacy of Christ and the salvation act of the Church. The new prominence in the religion of marriage is reliable with the allegiance of modern sociology that this age people marry and stay in marriage because of their love for each other. Moreover there is the emphasis on the common swap of love comprising the sacrament of marriage, on marital love as the basis of the body of marriage, on the necessity for development in this love to receive the sacrament to its full comprehension, and on the requirement for the Church to continuously bring forth the observer’s worth of this sacrament to the entire community of belief.

As two people are called to be truthful, kind, and polite in fulfillment of their marriage covenant to each other, hence the whole Church is called to be truthful to its agreement with God in Christ. The need of faith dedication for the sacrament of marriage is also emphasized. Marriage is not a ceremony whereby two people are lawfully bound together. Marriage as a sacrament is an act of reverence, and expression of trust, an indication of the unity of the Church and mode of the presence of Christ.

The whole consummation of marriage is more than a genetic act. The previous theology and the canon rule emphasized that a marriage amid two baptized Christians, once they are executed in accordance to the ritual of the Church and once accomplished by a particular act of physical union, can never be disbanded, not even by the pope. The expression of the mutual love according to the council which is at the emotion of the sacrament comprises of more than biological unification. It engages the good of the whole personality. Consequently it can enhance the expressions of body and psyche with a unique self-respect, making it possible for these terms as special component and signs of friendship classic marriage. 7

The broader ecclesial element of the sacrament is maintained. Christian spouse in virtue of the sacrament of marriage implies that the ambiguity of that unification and successful love that is there between Christ and the Church. The Catholic marriage which is also known as matrimony is a permanent union involving a man and a woman, formed by human agreement and approve by godly grace. It is among the seven sacraments and is normally celebrated in a matrimony Mass.

The covenant necessitate that the two parties be one woman and one man and they be free to get married, that they enthusiastically and consciously enter into a suitable marriage agreement, and that they faithfully implement the performance of the agreement. From the viewpoint of the 8 Catholic Church, the circumstances for a sacramental marriage, both the man and the woman ought to be baptized, capable of marrying and unreservedly approval to the marriage.

The Church in general offers classes some months prior to marriage so as to assist the participants inform their approval. All through or prior to this time, partner to be are confirmed, if they have previously not received authorization and it can be completed devoid of grave trouble. The Church has more necessities for the form of vows, which is the canonical form. Unless dispensed, the canonical type of marriage should be followed.

The partaker in a marriage agreement should be free to get married, and to tie the knot. They ought to be a single man and woman, with no hurdles as lay down out by Canon law, the partaker should plan marriage. It is consent that creates marriage in the Catholic Church. Approval consists in a human being act by which the associates equally give themselves to one another. 9 The approval should be a free act of the will of the parties consenting, free of force or grave external fault. If there is no freedom, the approval is null.

A Catholic church marriage cannot be formed if one the following obstacle are given, some of these dispensation may include Ancestral and permanent Impotence, Consanguinity to the fourth security line, including lawful adoption to the second security line, relationship by marriage, for example a sister-in-law in the direct line, previous relationship, Holy guidelines, continuous vows of chastity in a spiritual organization, difference of religious group. The ministers of matrimony stress that husband and wife should realistically implement the marriage agreement. In the tradition Roman Catholic, the spouses are unstated to confer marriage on each other. The partners, as minister of elegance, obviously confer upon each other the sacrament of marriage and expressing their approval to the church 10 .

The Sacraments of Christian faith includes Holy Orders and Matrimony. They are established so that the receiver may devote themselves toward the salvation of others. They also contribute to the deliverance of the receiver, but only for the reason that the recipients work for the salvation of others. For the Christian to receive Holy Orders generally, it is essential that he be a baptized male, and, in the case of grown up that he be acting on his own free will.Licit reception entails that the candidate be capable according to canon rules and that he be free from all obstructions.

All guidelines are normally awarded by bishops; but the abbots also have the authority of conferring tonsure and slight orders on their own subjects.

Buitendag, J. (2007). Matrimony in the teachings of Martin Luther, worldly yet holy: an alternative between secularism and clericalism. vol. 63, no. 2, pp. 445-461.

Bausch, W. (1998). The original appearance of the Sacraments: Mystic. p42.

Duffy, R. (1990). Moral and Religious Instruction.Eucharist in Oxford Dictionary’s Christian Church , New York: Oxford Press. ’, pp. 337-9.

Giles, D. (1982). The Sacraments, Franciscan University: Steubenville. No 6 pp. 39-47.

Klein, G. and Wolfe R. (1998) Pastoral basics of the Sacraments: A Catholic viewpoint, New York: Paulist.

Williams, G. (1979). The Sacramental existence: An Orthodox Christian viewpoint, (3 rd ed.), freedom: St. John of Kronstadt Press. pp 131-33.

Johan Buitendag, Matrimony in the teachings Martin Luther (2007)445-461.
William Bausch, The original appearance of the Sacraments 🙁 Mystic.1998) 42.
William Bausch, The original appearance of the Sacraments 🙁 Mystic.1998) 69.
William Bausch, The original appearance of the Sacraments 🙁 Mystic.1998) 71.
R Duffy, Moral and Religious Instruction Christian Church , ( New York: Oxford Press. 1990) 337-9.
D Giles, The Sacraments, (Franciscan University: Steubenville. 1982) 39-47.
Klein, G. and Wolfe R. Pastoral basics of the Sacraments: (A Catholic viewpoint, New York: Paulist. 1998).
G Williams, The Sacramental existence: (An Orthodox Christian viewpoint, (3 rd ed.), freedom: St. John of Kronstadt Press 1979) 131-33.
Chicago (A-D)
Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, September 30). Christians Holy Orders and Marriage. https://ivypanda.com/essays/christians-holy-orders-and-marriage/

"Christians Holy Orders and Marriage." IvyPanda , 30 Sept. 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/christians-holy-orders-and-marriage/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'Christians Holy Orders and Marriage'. 30 September.

IvyPanda . 2021. "Christians Holy Orders and Marriage." September 30, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/christians-holy-orders-and-marriage/.

1. IvyPanda . "Christians Holy Orders and Marriage." September 30, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/christians-holy-orders-and-marriage/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "Christians Holy Orders and Marriage." September 30, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/christians-holy-orders-and-marriage/.

Christian Sacraments: Matrimony
Martin Luther: Sacramental Practices
Concept of Eucharist Curriculum in Education
The Sacraments: Celebration
Summary of the Eucharist by Robert Barron
Understanding of Christian Sacraments
The Mass and the Sacraments in Catholic Tradition
Eucharistic Practices of St. Augustine and John Wesley
The Seven Sacraments and Human Life Stages
Is Traditional Matrimony Going Out of Style?
Polytheism of Ancient Greek and Babylonians Compared
The Concept of "Spiritual Vision"
Sister Helen Prejean’s Position in the Film “Dead Man Walking”
Five Moral Principles of ACA vs. Seven Virtues of Christian Counseling
Religion in Health Care: Function and Dysfunction

Search Menu
Advance articles
Author Guidelines
Submission Site
Open Access
About European Sociological Review
Editorial Board
Advertising and Corporate Services
Journals Career Network
Self-Archiving Policy
Dispatch Dates
Journals on Oxford Academic
Books on Oxford Academic

Article Contents

Introduction, theory and hypotheses, conclusion and discussion, acknowledgements.

< Previous

The Association Between Christianity and Marriage Attitudes in Europe. Does Religious Context Matter?

Article contents
Figures & tables
Supplementary Data

Aart C Liefbroer, Arieke J Rijken, The Association Between Christianity and Marriage Attitudes in Europe. Does Religious Context Matter?, European Sociological Review , Volume 35, Issue 3, June 2019, Pages 363–379, https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcz014

Permissions Icon Permissions

Christian religiosity is linked to traditional marriage attitudes. This article jointly studies individual, contextual and cross-level effects of Christian religiosity on marriage attitudes. In doing so, this article sheds light on the issue of how a key institution like religion influences societal values. Is it only via compositional effects, with larger numbers of religious people leading to more positive marriage attitudes in a society? Or does religion also have ‘emergent properties’ that have an additional effect on marriage attitudes on top of the compositional effect? Finally, we examine whether the strength of the link between individual religiousness and marriage attitudes depends on the religious context. We use data from the ESS 2006 and use the regional level as our preferred contextual level. Our results show that Christian religiosity has individual, contextual and cross-level effects. It is level of religiosity rather than type of denomination that matters. In more religious regions, both the religious and the non-religious hold more traditional marriage attitudes. Finally, although the more religious hold more positive marriage attitudes in both low and high religious contexts, the difference between both groups is much smaller in low than in high religious contexts. This suggests that an adaptation mechanism among religious people in secularized contexts is at work.

It is well-established that Christians (and most adherents of other religions) generally hold more traditional marriage attitudes than the non-religious, with the former being much more likely than the latter to object to behaviours such as unmarried cohabitation and divorce, that are seen as undermining the centrality of marriage ( Thornton, 1985 ; Pearce and Thornton, 2007 ; Adamczyk, 2013 ; Wilkins-LaFlamme, 2016 ). This general statement, however, does not take into account the wide variety of social contexts in which religious differences express themselves. In the past decades, processes like secularization and the fall of Communism have shaken up the religious map of Europe. Nowadays, large variability exists across countries and across regions within countries in the proportion of people that belong to a Christian denomination. Moreover, among Christians, large variation exists in the extent to which they identify with and engage in religion and religious activity. This raises a number of questions on the relationship between Christianity and marriage attitudes. A first question is which aspect of Christianity matters. Is it whether people identify themselves as Christians at all, is it the denomination they adhere to, or is it the extent to which people actively identify with and engage in religion and religious activity? Most studies that examine the relationship between religiosity and attitudes suggest that both active engagement and denomination matter, but their relative importance varies across studies, with active engagement generally ( Moore and Vanneman, 2003 ; Pearce and Thornton, 2007 ; Finke and Adamczyk, 2008 ; Halman and Van Ingen, 2015 ), but not always ( Adamczyk, 2008 ), being more important than denomination.

A second question is whether religion only is important for its adherents or whether it also influences the broader community. Christianity is a major societal institution, and it could be that just living in a context that is highly religious may influence marriage attitudes, even for those who do not or only slightly identify themselves as religious. Evidence is not unequivocal though, with some studies suggesting that people hold more traditional attitudes in more religious contexts ( Thornton, 1985 ; Moore and Vanneman, 2003 ; Finke and Adamczyk, 2008 ; Adamczyk and Hayes, 2012 ; Wilkins-LaFlamme, 2016 ), whereas others did not find such a contextual effect ( Jaspers, Lubbers and De Graaf, 2007 ; Adamczyk, 2008 ). If a contextual effect would exist, the question is how large it is in comparison to the effect of indicators of individual religiosity.

A third question is whether the strength of the relationship between individual religiosity and marriage attitudes depends on the religious context. People’s marriage attitudes may be influenced by the combination of their individual religiosity and the religious context. For instance, if Christians live in a relatively secular context they may adapt their family attitudes and become more similar to the non-religious than if they live in a very Christian context ( Finke and Adamczyk, 2008 ). However, the opposite could also be true, with Christians being more prone to stress their religious identity–and concomitant attitudes–in a secular context than they would had they lived in a more religious context ( Jaspers, Lubbers and De Graaf, 2007 ).

The aim of this article is to disentangle these different effects of religion on marriage attitudes. First, we make a distinction between three different aspects of individual religiosity; whether people adhere to Christianity at all, which denomination they adhere to, and the extent to which individuals are religiously involved. Second, we examine the importance of religious context. Are people in more religious contexts more likely to embrace traditional family attitudes than people in less religious contexts? And does the denomination matter at the contextual level? Whereas many studies focus on the country level ( Ruiter and De Graaf, 2006 ; Finke and Adamczyk, 2008 ; Adamczyk and Pitt, 2009 ; Huijts and Kraaykamp, 2011 ), we mainly focus on the regional level ( Adamczyk, 2008 ; Lim and MacGregor, 2012 ; Wilkins-LaFlamme, 2016 ), as quite some heterogeneity in level of religiosity exists within countries. In addition, in some countries the dominant denomination varies by region. Finally, we examine whether the strength of the link between individual religiousness and marriage attitudes depends on the religious context. Together, this allows us to jointly study individual, contextual , and cross-level effects of different aspects of religiosity on marriage values. Disentangling these three different types of effects is important from a sociological perspective, as it sheds light on the issue of how a key institution like religion influences societal values regarding marriage. Is it only via compositional effects, with larger numbers of religious people leading to more positive marriage attitudes in a society? Or does religion also have ‘emergent properties’, with it having an additional effect on marriage attitudes on top of the compositional effect?

To answer our central questions, we use data from the third wave of the ESS (2006) for 25 European countries, in which questions on people’s attitudes towards divorce, non-marital cohabitation, and childbearing in non-marital cohabitation were posed. We focus on the three main strands of Christianity 1 in Europe: Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, and Orthodoxy. 2

Which Aspects of Christianity Matter for Individual Marriage Attitudes?

Marriage is a living arrangement that is highly valued in Christian teaching ( Yarhouse and Nowacki, 2007 ). It is viewed as a sacrament in most strands of Christianity, like Roman Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and in many Protestant denominations, like Lutheranism. This focus on marriage has led most Christian denominations to be sceptical about or outright oppose family decisions and living arrangements that conflict with marriage, such as divorce and unmarried cohabitation. Given that all mainstream Christian denominations emphasize the importance of marriage, we expect that marriage attitudes are generally quite traditional among people who adhere to the Christian faith. Those who are not religious are expected to be less susceptible to Christian views on marriage and thus to value marriage less strongly. In line with this reasoning, several studies have shown that the non-religious hold less traditional marriage attitudes than adherents of most Christian denominational strands ( Halman and Van Ingen, 2015 ; Wilkins-LaFlamme, 2016 ). Thus, our first hypothesis is that:

H1: Members of Christian denominations hold more traditional marriage attitudes than the non-religious.

Although all denominations emphasize the value of marriage, this emphasis might not be equally strong across denominations. Protestantism historically stresses individual responsibility rather than hierarchical subordination, and this should result in more leeway for individual decision-making within Protestantism than in Roman Catholicism ( Cohen and Hill, 2007 ). Furthermore, most European mainstream Protestant denominations have become quite reluctant to formulate strict prescriptions concerning personal behaviour ( Dobbelaere, 1981 ). Marriage attitudes are generally quite strict in most strands of Orthodoxy ( Stan, 2010 ). In general, it leads us to expect that Protestants will value marriage less strongly than members of the other large strands of Christianity. Therefore, our second hypothesis is that:

H2: Members of Protestant denominations hold less traditional marriage attitudes than members of Roman Catholicism and Orthodox denominations.

In individualized societies, membership in religious denominations may have lost some of its importance, as members vary widely in the extent that they participate in religious practices and identify with religious denominations. From this perspective, it can be argued that it is not only (or maybe not so much) whether individuals are members of religious denominations, but how strong their religious involvement is that matters. Those who are not involved will less likely base their opinions about marriage on the views of their denomination, whereas this is much more likely among those who are strongly involved in religious denominations. Religious communities have a socializing function: internalization of religious guidelines on family matters is likely to be stimulated by going to church and being part of a religious community. In addition, those who are more religious probably also are more susceptible to normative pressure to follow these guidelines. Numerous studies have shown the importance of religious involvement as a predictor of family related attitudes ( Jaspers, Lubbers and De Graaf, 2007 ; Finke and Adamczyk, 2008 ; Adamczyk and Pitt, 2009 ; Adamczyk, 2013 ; Halman and Van Ingen, 2015 ; Wilkins-LaFlamme, 2016 ). This leads to our third hypothesis:

H3: The more religious people are, the more traditional marriage attitudes they will hold.

The question is whether this effect will dominate the effect of denomination, that is, whether it will make potential differences in marriage attitudes between denominations disappear and perhaps even differences between those who do consider themselves as Christians and those who do not consider themselves as members of any religious denomination.

Does the Religious Context Matter for Individual Marriage Attitudes?

The discussion in the previous section suggests that religion influences the societal attitude towards marriage via the individual attitudes and behaviours of its members (or its more committed members). The higher the number of religious individuals in a societal context, the more traditional attitudes towards marriage in that context will be. However, this compositional effect need not be the only way in which religion exerts an influence on marriage attitudes in society. In most Western societies, Christian denominations have developed into powerful institutions that are able to shape both the cultural climate within a society and exert an influence on major rules and regulations concerning issues that they deem important. Although the influence of religious institutions in these societies has been waning during the last half-century ( Gorski and Altinordu, 2008 ), denominations still exert or try to exert considerable influence on institutional arrangements. Examples of Christian denominations’ institutional involvement within the realm of family values are the opposition to a relaxation of divorce laws, the institutionalization of same-sex marriage, and the granting of equal rights to cohabiting couples. But apart from this institutional involvement, the pervasive, long-standing influence of Christian denominations on the cultural climate within a society may affect the marriage attitudes of those who are not very committed and even of those who do not identify with a religious denomination at all.

If the strength of a religion to influence the cultural climate and institutional arrangements in a societal context lies in its institutional power, one would expect that the marriage attitudes would depend primarily on the proportion of people who are a member of religious denominations. At the same time, we expect this effect to be weaker for Protestantism than for the other denominations, as we expect Protestants to be less traditional than members of the other two large denominations. In line with this idea, we formulate a fourth hypothesis:

H4: The higher the proportion of members of a religious denomination in a region, the more likely it is that people hold traditional marriage attitudes. This effect is weaker for Protestantism than for Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy.

If the strength of religion primarily lies in the conviction of committed believers to spread their attitudes to others, marriage attitudes in a societal context would mainly depend on the level of religiosity of individual believers. This idea is reflected in our fifth hypothesis:

H5: The higher the general level of religiosity in a region, the more likely it is that people hold traditional marriage attitudes.

Two studies that examined contextual effects of religion on family related attitudes have focused on the proportion of members of religious denominations, and thus investigated whether strength in numbers matter ( Moore and Vanneman, 2003 ; Wilkins-LaFlamme, 2016 ). In both instances, the hypothesis was confirmed. One study examined whether the level of religiosity in a societal context is related to attitudes—and thus in a sense whether the strength of convictions matter ( Finke and Adamczyk, 2008 ). Again, the findings were in line with expectations. However, no study as yet examined whether both contextual effects are operative at the same time or whether one is dominating the other.

Does the Link Between Individual Religiosity and Marriage Attitudes Depend on the Level of Religiosity in the Societal Context?

Most modern societies are undergoing a process of secularization ( Gorski and Altinordu, 2008 ). The most common view on secularization is that this implies that the proportion of the population that agrees with a religious worldview is diminishing. However, apart from this process of ‘external’ secularization, religious communities may also undergo a process of ‘internal’ secularization. By internal secularization, we mean a process in which the ‘translation’ of the religious doctrines to the personal lives of the religious is increasingly left to religious individuals themselves ( Dobbelaere, 1981 ). Instead of the religious community deciding on what the religious doctrines imply, individuals themselves are to decide on this. It can be expected that such a process of ‘internal’ secularization is more likely in regions where the process of external secularization has also advanced, than in regions where external secularization is not very widespread. This could imply that religious individuals in highly secularized regions pay less attention to denominational teachings on marriage than religious individuals in regions where most people are still religious. In addition, in secularized contexts the religious may experience normative pressure from the non-religious majority to ‘modernize’ their views on issues like unmarried cohabitation and divorce and to align these views with those of the non-religious majority. This idea of religious individuals adapting their attitudes to that of the non-religious majority leads us to formulate the following hypothesis:

H6A: The less religious a region is, the weaker the positive effect of individual religion on traditional marriage attitudes.

This hypothesis is in line with the idea behind the hypothesis of moral communities ( Stark, 1996 ). Stark argued that religion produces conformity to its norms only when it is sustained through interaction and accepted by the majority as a valid basis for action. Stark used this reasoning to explain why in studies from the secularized pacific region of the United States no correlation was found between individual religious involvement and youth delinquency, whereas studies from more religious parts of the United States showed the expected negative correlation.

Alternatively, one could argue that being a minority of believers in a non-religious environment could lead to a re-affirmation of differences in attitudes between the religious and the non-religious, also referred to as religious polarization ( Wilkins-LaFlamme, 2016 ). First, in a highly secularized context, those who remain religious may become a rather selective group of ‘die-hard’ believers who stress traditional values. Second, the experience of being a minority whose beliefs are under siege may make believers wanting to show that they differ from their secular environment, and this may lead to a re-affirmation of traditional teachings. This reasoning would lead us to expect that the differences in the centrality of marriage between Christians and the nonreligious are stronger in secularized contexts than in non-secularized ones. Thus, we formulate the contrasting hypothesis:

H6B: The less religious a region is, the stronger the positive effect of individual religion on marriage attitudes.

We will investigate the cross-level interaction between individual and regional religion for denomination (membership) as well as level of religiosity.

Studies provide mixed support for both of the hypotheses formulated above. In line with H6A, Finke and Adamczyk (2008) find that the positive relationship between the importance that individuals attach to religion and conservative sexual morality is weaker in less religious countries. However, the relationship between religious attendance and sexual morality did not depend on how religious a country was. Several other studies have reported results that seem to favour H6B. Moore and Vanneman (2003) find that differences in gender attitudes between fundamentalists and non-fundamentalists are larger in US states with relatively low numbers of fundamentalists than in US states with relatively many fundamentalists. Wilkins-LaFlamme (2016) reports that the differences in family values between committed members of denominations and non-members are larger in regions with more people who are not affiliated to a religious denomination. Jaspers, Lubbers and De Graaf (2007) found that the effect of being religious on attitudes towards homosexuality and euthanasia in the Netherlands increased over time between 1975 and the late 90s, hence when the Netherlands became more secularized. Two other studies do not test the cross-level interaction directly, but report that the effect of own religious importance on attitudes towards homosexuality, abortion, and divorce is stronger in countries with strong self-expression attitudes ( Adamczyk and Pitt, 2009 ; Adamczyk, 2013 ), which also suggests the relevance of the re-affirmation mechanism.

The studies mentioned above differ in how they define the religious context. Some studies measure the proportion of people that are members of religious denominations ( Moore and Vanneman, 2003 ; Wilkins-LaFlamme, 2016 ), whereas others emphasize the general level of importance that is attached to religion ( Finke and Adamczyk, 2008 ; Adamczyk and Pitt, 2009 ; Adamczyk, 2013 ). This suggests that it is not a priori clear which aspect(s) of the religious context matter for these interaction effects. Therefore, we will examine cross-level effects for denomination as well as for level of religiosity.

Data and Sample

To test our hypotheses, we used data from the third wave of the European Social Survey (2006–2007). This wave is the only ESS wave to date that contains information on attitudes concerning behaviours that could be viewed as challenging the centrality of marriage, like divorce, unmarried cohabitation, and having children outside marriage. Data were collected among 47,099 respondents in 25 countries, using face-to-face interviews. The sampling strategy varied between countries, depending on their access to sampling sources, but were all based on the same basic principles of strict probability and representativeness. The ESS aims to be representative of residential populations aged 15 years and older, regardless of nationality or citizenship. Response rates per country varied between 46.0 per cent and 73.2 per cent. The (unweighted) average response rate was 63.5 per cent.

Given our focus on differences between Christians belonging to one of the three major Christian churches (Catholicism, Protestantism, and Orthodoxy) and people who do not consider themselves as belonging to any religion, we excluded respondents identifying with smaller Christian denominations (2.0 per cent) and non-Christian religions (1.8 per cent). Furthermore, we excluded 4.6 per cent of our sample due to missing values on one or more of our variables. This left us with 43,242 respondents nested in 226 regions, which in turn are nested in 25 countries (see Table 2 for the countries included).

Contextual Level: Country or Region?

A critical issue in testing our contextual hypotheses is what constitutes the best level of aggregation. Many studies focus on the country as the contextual level of interest. However, it is not clear that this is optimal. Both the level of religiosity and the membership of Christian denominations show regional variation within countries (see below). Thus, a focus on regions within countries seems warranted. There is a practical reason to focus on the regional level as well; parameter estimates and their standard errors may be imprecise and biased if the number of level-2 units included in a multi-level analysis is limited ( Bryan and Jenkins, 2016 ). The number of countries in the dataset is only 25, whereas we distinguished 226 regions. Therefore, we decided to focus on the regional level, but controlling for the fact that regions are nested within countries. Furthermore, as explained in the Analytical strategy section below, we ran additional sensitivity analyses in which effects of denomination and level of religiosity were estimated both at the regional and country level.

Individual-level variables

Three items measured attitudes towards marriage. Respondents were asked to indicate on a five-point Likert-scale running from ‘strongly disapprove’ to ‘strongly approve’ to what extent they approved or disapproved if a woman/man (1) lives with a partner without being married to him/her, (2) has a child with a partner she/he lives with but is not married to, and (3) gets divorced while she/he has children aged under 12. Respondents were randomly assigned to a set of questions about the behaviour of women or to a set of questions about the behaviour of men. 3 The reliability of the resulting scale was good, in particular given the small number of items (Cronbach’s α = 0.70). We used the mean score on the three items as our indicator of marriage attitudes; the higher the score, the stronger respondents favoured marriage.

Religious membership was measured with the question: ‘Do you consider yourself as belonging to any particular religion?’ (1 = yes, 0 = no). Those who answered ‘yes’ were asked to which religion they belonged. This variable indicates self-identified membership or belonging, rather than official membership. We distinguished between Catholics, Protestants (including Anglicans), and Orthodox (Greek as well as Russian Orthodox). Respondents who belonged to smaller Christian denominations or to other religions were excluded.

Three items were used to measure level of religiosity. The first item read ‘Regardless of whether you belong to a particular religion, how religious would you say you are?’, with response options running from ‘not at all religious’ (0) to ‘very religious’ (10). The second item was ‘Apart from special occasions such as weddings and funerals, about how often do you attend religious services nowadays?’ The wording of the third item was ‘Apart from when you are at religious services, how often, if at all, do you pray?’ The last two items both had scores ranging from ‘every day’ (1) to ‘never’ (7). A factor analysis (principal component analysis) showed one clear factor underlying these three items. Country-specific analyses showed that—depending on the country—a one-factor model explained between 61 and 79 per cent of the variance in these items. In the pooled dataset this factor explained 76 per cent of the variance. The standardized factor score was used to indicate respondents’ level of religiosity. The higher the score, the stronger religiously involved respondents were. If one item was missing, it was substituted by the average value of respondents with the same score on one of the other two items (in 1.9 per cent of the cases such a substitution was made, mostly because of a missing on frequency of prayer).

We included a small set of variables that could both be related to our key independent and dependent variables, and thus lead to spurious correlations between religiousness and marriage attitudes. The following control variables were included; gender (0 = male, 1 = female), age (in years), level of educational attainment, migrant status (0 = born in the country of residence, 1 = born elsewhere), and level of urbanization. Educational attainment was measured using the ISCED system, with five categories, running from ‘less than secondary education’ (ISCED 0–1) to ‘tertiary education completed’ (ISCED 5–6). ‘Upper secondary education completed’ (ISCED 3) was chosen as the reference category. Level of urbanization was measured by five categories as well, ranging from ‘a farm or home in the country side’ to ‘a big city’ (reference category). Table 1 provides descriptive information on individual variables.

Individual-level descriptives ( N = 43,242)

Regional level-variables

Our regional-level variables were aggregated from the ESS data. The ESS contains a regional classification variable that is based on nomenclature of territorial units for statistics (NUTS). The number of regions distinguished per country depended on the size of the country and the country-specific sample size. For some countries, NUTS 1 was used, whereas for other countries NUTS 2 or 3 was used. We pooled data from the first three waves of the ESS, in order to have more reliable estimates at the regional level. 4 In some countries, we merged regions with few respondents, based on the criterion that the pooled dataset of ESS waves 1, 2, and 3 should contain at least about 100 respondents per region. After this reclassification, the number or regions per country ranged from 3 in Belgium and Ireland to 22 in Ukraine.

We constructed three variables indicating the proportion of the total population in a region that belonged to the Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox Church, respectively. These proportions were based on the total samples per country, thus including the respondents identifying with ‘other’ Christian and non-Christian religions. In addition, the regional level of religiosity was measured as the regional mean of the individual-level religiosity scale. This variable was standardized in order to facilitate the comparison between the individual-level religiosity variable and the regional-level religiosity level variable, which is a standardized factor score.

Analytical Strategy

Three-level regression-models were estimated, with individuals, regions, and countries as the three levels. Contextual religion variables were only included at the regional level, but random slopes were specified at both the regional level and the country level. We only estimated variances of the random effects (standard deviations reported), no covariances between the random effects, as this would make the estimation of the random part of the model too complicated. 5 , 6 All analyses were conducted using the xtmixed command with restricted maximum likelihood estimation in Stata. Information on the order of models is provided in the Results section. In addition, we estimated a more complex model that included contextual and cross-level effects at both the regional and the country level. We report on the results of this model at the end of the results section.

Table 2 provides individual-level descriptive information on marriage attitudes and religion by country. Countries are ordered from most to least traditional marriage attitudes (from highest to lowest mean score). Roughly, people in Eastern Europe hold the most traditional marriage attitudes (Slovenia being an exception), and people in the Nordic countries hold the least traditional attitudes, together with the Dutch and the Belgians. Other Western-European countries score in between the Eastern European and the Nordic countries. The mean level of religiosity is highest in Cyprus and lowest in Sweden, but the country pattern is not as clear as for marriage attitudes. The percentage of people who do not consider themselves as belonging to any religious denomination ranges from less than 2 per cent in Cyprus to 73 per cent in Estonia. Countries with the highest percentage of Catholics are Poland (91 per cent), Portugal (85 per cent), and Ireland (77 per cent), Denmark and Finland have the highest percentage of Protestants (both 61 per cent), and the highest percentages of Orthodox are found in Cyprus (98 per cent) and Romania (82 per cent). Switzerland, Germany, and Hungary (and to a lesser extent: the Netherlands and Great Britain) have substantial proportions of both Catholics and Protestants. Latvia is the only country with roughly equal (but rather low) percentages of all three major Christian denominations.

Individual-level descriptives on marriage attitudes and religion by country

Since we mainly focus on the role of the regional religious context, we also present a map showing regional variation in average religiosity scores ( Figure 1 ). Scores are highest in Poland, Romania, Ireland and parts of Ukraine and Portugal, and lowest in Eastern Germany, Western France, and parts of Sweden, Estonia, and Latvia. In most countries, some regional variation in religiosity scores is apparent. This variation is strongest in Spain, Bulgaria, Ukraine, Slovakia, Hungary, and Germany. 7

Average religiosity score by European region

Source: Own calculations on data from ESS waves 1–3.

Next, we examine the relationship between marriage attitudes and religion in a series of multi-level models. Table 3 presents three models that investigate the effects of our three individual-level indicators for religion on marriage attitudes. Model 1 shows that people who consider themselves a member of the three major Christian denominations score 0.217 higher on the five-point scale of marriage attitudes than people who do not belong to any religious denomination. This finding supports H1, which stated that members of a Christian denomination hold more traditional marriage attitudes than people who do not identify with any religion. Furthermore, Model 1 shows that the effects of the control variables are in line with expectations: Men, older individuals, less educated individuals, first-generation immigrants, and individuals living in the countryside hold more traditional marriage attitudes than women, more educated individuals, those who were born in the country in which they reside, and those living in big cities. With regard to education, we see that there is no difference in marriage attitudes between those with post-secondary non-tertiary education (ISCED level 4) and the reference group, upper secondary education (ISCED level 3), but apart from that the pattern is monotonous. The effect of urbanization is not completely monotonous; those living in suburbs or outskirts of big cities hold more traditional marriage attitudes than those living in towns or small cities.

Multilevel regression estimates of marriages attitudes: effects of individual-level variables ( N = 43,242 individuals, 226 regions, 25 countries).

P < 0.05.

P < 0.01.

P < 0.001.

In Model 2, we distinguish between the three major religious denominations in Europe. Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox all score higher than those who do not identify with any religious denomination, which means that members of all three denominations hold more traditional marriage attitudes. 8 The coefficients for Catholics and Protestants are very close to each other (with the latter being slightly higher), hence we did not find evidence for H2, which stated that Protestants are less marriage oriented than Catholics. The coefficient for the Orthodox is the highest of the three denominations, but an additional analysis with the Orthodox as the reference category showed that their marriage attitudes do not differ significantly from those of Catholics and Protestants.

In Model 3, 9 we added the level of religiosity. The effects indicate that the more religiously involved people are, the more traditional their marriage attitudes (an increase of one SD on the religiosity scale results in a 0.199 increase on the five-point scale that measures marriage attitudes), hence H3 is confirmed. What is more, it turns out that only the level of religiosity matters, whereas denomination does not: When level of religiosity is taken into account, none of the denominations differ in marriage attitudes from those who do not identify with a religious denomination. To be precise, the effect of Protestantism is borderline significant ( P = 0.057), but it has decreased from 0.276 in Model 2 to 0.066 in Model 3. Hence the differences in marriage attitudes between people who consider themselves as member of a Christian church and those who do not identify with any religion should be attributed to their level of religiosity and not to specific characteristics of the denominations.

In the next set of Models (Model 4 and 5, Table 4 ), we retained denomination and level of religiosity at the individual level, and added indicators of religion at the regional level. In Model 4, the proportions of the regional population that consider themselves as a member of each of the three major Christian churches were added. The results show that on top of the effect of individual level of religiosity, there are small regional effects of the proportion of Catholics and Orthodox: the higher these proportions relative to the proportions of people who do not identify with any religion, the more traditional people’s marriage attitudes are. If the proportion of Catholics increases with 10 per cent at the cost of the proportion of non-members, the average score on marriage attitudes increases with almost 0.018 and if the proportion of Orthodox increases with 10 per cent at the cost of the proportion of non-members, the average score on marriage attitudes increases with about 0.039 (on a five-point scale). 10 Hence, H4 is partly confirmed; there are positive effects of the proportion of Catholics and Orthodox on traditional marriage attitudes, however these effects are quite small. There is no significant effect of the proportion of Protestants.

Multilevel regression estimates of marriages attitudes: effects of individual-level and regional-level variables ( N = 43,242 individuals, 226 regions, 25 countries)

In Model 5, the mean level of religiosity of the population at the regional level was added. It has a positive effect on marriage attitudes: the higher the population’s mean level of religiosity, the more traditional people’s marriage attitudes are. An increase of one SD in the mean level of religiosity, leads to an increase of 0.069 on the five-point scale that measures marriage attitudes. This shows that people’s marriage attitudes are affected by the mean level of religiosity in their region, on top of their own level of religiosity. Hence, H5 is confirmed. The regional effect is about one third of the effect size of individual-level religiosity ( b = 0.069 vs. b = 0.196). Moreover, the effects of the regional denomination variables become weaker and statistically non-significant when regional religiosity is included. Hence, at the regional level we see the same as at the individual level: level of religiosity is the most important indicator of religion for explaining marriage attitudes. In addition, we can conclude that in the process of secularization, the decrease in level of religiosity has a stronger influence on marriage attitudes than the decrease in the percentage of church members.

The next step is to investigate whether the effects of the different individual indicators for religion depend on the religious context at the regional level. Although we saw earlier that the effects of individual denomination and the percentage of members of each denomination in the region’s population disappeared when taking the level of individual and regional religiosity into account, it may still be the case that the effect of individual denomination depends on the extent to which one’s own denomination is dominant in one’s region. This is tested in Model 6, presented in Table 5 . The results indicate that there is only an interaction between being Orthodox and the proportion of Orthodox in the region: the higher the proportion of Orthodox in a region, the weaker the positive effect of being Orthodox, or in other words: the lower the proportion of Orthodox in a region, the stronger the positive effect of being Orthodox. This supports the idea of a reformation mechanism (H6b) for the Orthodox: the more selective their group is (i.e. the lower the proportion of Orthodox adherents in their region), the more they stress traditional marriage attitudes.

Multilevel regression estimates of marriages attitudes: effects of individual-level variables, regional-level variables and interactions ( N = 43,242 individuals, 226 regions, 25 countries)

In Model 7, we added the interaction between individual level of religiosity and mean level of regional religiosity. This interaction has a positive effect, implying that the positive effect of individual level of religiosity is stronger in regions where the mean level of religiosity is higher. Or formulated the other way around: in more secularized regions, the effect of individual religiosity is weaker, confirming H6a. The effect is illustrated in Figure 2 , where we plot marriage attitudes against individual level of religiosity for a person living in region with a mean level of religiosity that is one SD above average and for a person living a region with a mean regional level religiosity that is one SD below average. The figure shows not only that in the more secular region, the effect of individual religion is weaker (i.e. the regression line is less steep), but also that the regional context matters little for the marriage attitudes of people with a very low level of individual religiosity (−2 SD) whereas for people with a very high level of individual religiosity (+2 SD) the religiosity of the regional context clearly does matter. Hence, this result supports the idea of an internal secularization process: in regions where external secularization has progressed further, religious individuals do not follow the teachings of the Church on marriage as strictly as in regions where external secularization is less widespread. In Model 7, the effect of the interaction between individual Orthodox denomination and the regional percentage of Orthodox that was observed in Model 6 remains intact. Although there seems to be a reformation mechanism among Orthodox adherents in regions with a low percentage of Orthodox, we do not find evidence for such a reformation mechanism for level of religiosity among Christians in general, but quite the opposite. In an additional model ( Supplementary Table A1 ) we included interactions between all denominations at the individual level and all denominations at the regional level. In this model, the negative interaction between individual Orthodox membership and regional proportion of Orthodox disappears, but positive interaction effects between individual Orthodox membership and the regional proportions of Catholics and Protestants are found; the Orthodox hold more traditional attitudes if they live in areas with higher proportions of Catholics or Protestants. Hence, the reformation process among Orthodox that our results seem to indicate, occurs in Catholic and Protestant regions rather than in more secular regions.

Marriage attitudes by individual level of religiosity and regional level of religiosity

In the models discussed so far, effects of macro-level variables and cross-level interactions were studied at the regional level rather than at the country level. In an additional analysis ( Supplementary Table A2 ), we included country-level variables and cross-level interactions at both the regional and the country level. No cross-level interactions between individual variables and country-level ones were statistically significant. The interaction between individual and regional-level religiosity remained statistically significant, suggesting that the regional level is an important level to study spatial variation in the effects of religiosity. 11

This article studies the multifaceted relationship between Christianity and marriage attitudes. First, it examines which aspect of religion (being a member of any Christian denomination, being a member of a particular denomination, or the level of religiosity) is most strongly related to marriage attitudes. This is usually labelled the ‘individual-level effect’ of religion. Next, it examines whether the religious macro-context influences the marriage attitudes in a society, even if individual-level effects are considered. This is usually labelled the ‘contextual-level’ effect. Finally, it examines whether the religious macro-context differentially affects the religious and the non-religious. This is usually labelled the ‘cross-level’ effect. Distinguishing these three types of effects is important, as it shows in more detail how a key institution like religion influences societal values regarding marriage. Data from the third wave of the ESS, conducted in 2006, were used to test a series of hypotheses about the relationship between Christianity and marriage attitudes and how this relationship differs across regions.

Our results show that Christians in Europe hold more traditional marriage attitudes than those who are not religious. However, it turns out that mainly the level of religiosity of individuals matters (H3 is confirmed). Once we take the level of individual religiosity into account, no differences in marriage attitudes between Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants were observed, nor differences between any of these denominations and those who are religiously unaffiliated. Thus, it is the strength of an individual’s engagement with religion (as indicated by their religious self-identification, and their level of public—via attendance of church services—and private—via prayer—commitment) that is associated with their marriage attitudes, not their denominational membership. It suggests that it is not the type of specific denominational instruction that religious people receive that is shaping their attitudes towards marriage. Rather, it seems the more religious people are, the more serious they take notions about the sacramental or covenantal nature of marriage that are central to most religious teaching.

There is one caveat to this general conclusion. Our study focused on the non-affiliated and the members of the three main Christian denominational strands in Europe. Given our comparative focus, members of small Christian groupings outside the mainstream and members of non-Christian religions, like Muslims and Jews, could not be delineated, as their numbers were too small in many countries, let alone in many regions. Furthermore, within the three mainstream denominations, no further subdivisions were possible. It could be that being a church member has an additional effect on top of level of religiosity if specific subgroups of denominations could have been distinguished. For instance, it could be that members of more strict churches within Protestantism hold more traditional family related attitudes than the majority of Protestant church members.

Our findings also show that the link between Christianity and marriage attitudes does not only exist at the individual level. Religious context matters as well. Again, it is the mean level of religiosity in a region that matters, not the size of particular denominations. This confirms hypothesis 5, and does not confirm hypothesis 4. Two important conclusions can be drawn from these findings. First, people in contexts that are very religious hold more traditional marriage attitudes than people in less religious contexts, irrespective of whether people themselves are religious. It suggests that religion has a pervasive and often long-lasting impact on cultural contexts. In more religious contexts, the religious and the non-religious are more reluctant to deviate from central moral prescriptions enshrined in religious traditions. Second, the fact that the mean level of religiosity rather than the size of particular denominations is more important suggests, again, that particularities of specific denominations do not seem to matter so much. As at the individual level, it is the level of religiosity within a region that matters, not whether one is Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox.

Our final set of hypotheses concerned whether the strength of the link between individual religiosity and marriage attitudes depends on the religious regional context. One line of reasoning suggests that religious people are more likely to adapt their marriage attitudes to those of the non-religious if they live in a very secular region, that is, the effect of individual religiosity is smaller in secular regions than in religious regions (H6A), whereas the other line of reasoning suggests that the former rather want to distance themselves from the non-religious in a secular context, that is, the effect of individual religiosity is larger in secular regions than in religious regions (H6B). The results clearly favour the first of these two hypotheses. Although the more religious hold more positive marriage attitudes in both low and high religious contexts, the difference between both groups is much smaller in low than in high religious contexts. This suggests that the adaptation mechanism that we hypothesized is at work. At the same time, selective migration may play a role as well. Not all people with the same level of religiosity will adhere equally strongly to strict moral teachings. It could be that religious people with relatively tolerant moral beliefs are likely to move from regions that are strongly religious to regions that are less religious, whereas religious people with strict moral beliefs are more likely to move in the opposite direction (or stay in their religious region). This alternative explanation cannot be tested with the ESS data. Longitudinal information on migration and religiosity would be needed to do so.

In addition, one denominational cross-level effect was found. Members of the Orthodox churches were more likely to hold traditional marriage attitudes in regions with relatively large representations of Catholics and/or Protestants. One possible explanation for this finding is that Orthodoxy may experience a stronger challenge to formulate clear moral guidelines in contexts in which it constitutes a minority denomination and experiences the competition of other denominations. This situation is more common for Catholicism and Protestantism, and may thus pose less of a challenge for these strands of Christianity.

Some of the limitations of this study have already been touched upon in the conclusions above: First, we only focused on the three major strands of Christianity in Europe. No attention was paid to Islam. Although a religion of growing importance in Europe, the proportion of Muslims is still low in many regions and their representation in surveys like the ESS is (too) weak to include them. It would be interesting to see whether the extent to which they adhere to marriage attitudes also depends on the religious context, and whether it matters for them whether that context is secularized (few religious people at all) or dominated by Christians (many religious people, but from another faith). Second, although we disentangled effects of membership, denomination and level of religiosity, we could not investigate which mechanisms are behind the influence of religiosity at the regional level. Does religion influence even those who are not religious through its influence on institutions or through culture? Our finding that the contextual effect of religiosity operated at the regional level rather than at the national level suggests that culture may be the more important mechanism as institutional power will probably vary little within countries. Third, in our theoretical interpretation of the results, we assume that religious affiliation influences marriage attitudes. However, it could also be that people’s attitudes towards marriage influences whether they remain church members and ultimately their level of religiosity. This makes the causal interpretation of the relationship between individual religiosity and marriage attitudes ambiguous.

To these limitations we add a final one. To investigate the effect of religion at a contextual level, we focused on the regional level. We believe that this is an improvement in comparison to studies that focus on the country level, because there is within-country variation in membership, denomination and level of religiosity. Moreover, we did not find interaction effects between individual- and country-level indicators of religion. Two remarks on this finding are in order. First, our regional analysis is mainly based on NUTS regions. However, to derive reliable estimates of regional levels of religiosity, we sometimes had to combine regions with few respondents. As a result, regions with low population density are somewhat underrepresented in our overall sample. Second, the regional level is not necessarily the best level of aggregation when investigating influences of the religious context. One could argue that influences of religion operate at even lower contextual levels such as that of the local community. In addition, one could argue that the ‘borders’ of religious areas such as bible belts do not necessarily follow the borders of NUTS regions. Thus, there is a clear potential for further research on the most ‘appropriate’ level of aggregation at which religious context effects are at work.

Aart C. Liefbroer is research theme leader at The Netherlands Interdisciplinary Demographic Institute (NIDI), Professor of Demography of the Life Course at the University Medical Center Groningen, and Professor of Demography of Young Adults and Intergenerational Transmission at the Department of Sociology at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. His main research interests are determinants and consequences of demographic events, such as leaving home, unmarried cohabitation, marriage, parenthood, and divorce.

Arieke J. Rijken is an Assistant Professor at the Department of Sociology of Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Currently, she is involved in a cross-national research project on several forms political participation. She has published articles in the fields of family sociology, demography, criminology and political science.

The increase of Islam in many European societies would have made it very interesting to include Islam in this study as well. However, the number of respondents identifying themselves as Muslims in the 2006 ESS is relatively small; their numbers are too few in many regions.

We use the generic term Orthodoxy to include different, often country-based variants, like Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Romanian Orthodox, etc. The same variety exists in Protestantism that includes a.o. Lutheran, Calvinist and Anglican strands.

This experimental design did not affect our results. Although respondents who got questions about men reported a higher level of disapproval (i.e. more traditional marriage attitudes) than respondents who got questions about women ( Rijken and Liefbroer, 2016 ), we did not include this gender wording variable in our models, as it was unrelated to our independent variables (because of randomization).

Not all countries participated in all 3 waves: 17 countries participated in 3 waves, three countries participated in wave 2 and 3, and the five remaining countries only participated in wave 3.

This implies that all covariances between the random effects are estimated independently (or in other words: restricted to be zero). This is the default option for the variance-covariance structure of the random effects for mixed models in Stata.

As is standard in statistical packages for multi-level analysis, no statistical significance of the random effects is reported as no agreed upon test for single random effects parameters is available. The usual z -tests do not work as variances cannot be negative and thus the 0-hypothesis is on the boundary of the parameter space.

Maps with the regional distribution of denominational membership can be found in the online Supplementary Materials .

Each of these three coefficients is higher than the coefficient of ‘member of religious denomination’ in Model 1 ( b = 0.217). One would expect this coefficient to be a weighted mean of the three coefficients of the religious denominations in Model 2, because the three denominations are grouped together in the variable ‘religious identification’. The difference in the effect sizes is due to the different specification of the random slopes in Model 1 and 2: in Model 1 we only included a random slope for being a member of a religious denomination, whereas in Model 2 we included random slopes for each of the three denominations.

In this and subsequent models we did not include the random slope for ‘Catholic’ at the country level, because when it was included (i.e. when we specified a model with random slopes for all religion variables), standard errors of the random parameter estimates could not be calculated. However, the parameter estimates in that model (without SE’s) are almost virtually identical to the parameter estimates in the model presented (and there was no variation for Catholic at the country level).

Note that Catholic, Protestant and Eastern Orthodox are proportional variables that sum to 100 per cent together with the non-member category. Therefore, one cannot interpret the effect of any of these variables as the effect of an increase in one denomination at the cost of the other denominations, because that would violate the ceteris paribus assumption. Therefore, we have to interpret the effects as the effect of an increase of the proportion of one denomination at the cost of the non-member group. See: http://stats.stackexchange.com/questions/183601/interpreting-proportions-that-sum-to-one-as-independent-variables-in-linear-regr

Additionally, we ran our final model (Model 7 in Table 5 ) separately for the three separate attitude items that constitute our marriage attitudes scale. Results were generally in line with those for the overall scale. These models are presented in Supplementary Tables A3–A5 .

We are grateful to Peter Ekamper for preparing the maps with information on regional religious indicators. We want to thank four anonymous ESR reviewers and the participants in the Social Inequality and Life Course seminar at the Department of Sociology at the VU University Amsterdam for their constructive comments on previous versions of this paper.

This article has benefitted from funding from the European Science Foundation to the project ‘The Timing of Life: Understanding Cross-National Differences in the Organisation of the Life Course in Europe (LIFETIMING)’ (07-HumVIB-FP-010).

Adamczyk A. ( 2008 ). The effects of religious contextual norms, structural constraints, and personal religiosity on abortion decisions . Social Science Research , 37 , 657 – 672 .

Google Scholar

Adamczyk A. ( 2013 ). The effect of personal religiosity on attitudes toward abortion, divorce, and gender equality. Does cultural context make a difference? Euramerica , 43 , 213 – 253 .

Adamczyk A. , Hayes B. E. ( 2012 ). Religion and sexual behaviors: understanding the influence of Islamic cultures and religious affiliation for explaining sex outside of marriage . American Sociological Review , 77 , 723 – 746 .

Adamczyk A. , Pitt C. ( 2009 ). Shaping attitudes about homosexuality: the role of religion and cultural context . Social Science Research , 38 , 338 – 351 .

Bryan M. L. , Jenkins S. P. ( 2016 ). Multilevel modelling of country effects: a cautionary tale . European Sociological Review , 32 , 3 – 22 .

Cohen A. B. , Hill P. C. ( 2007 ). Religion as culture: religious individualism and collectivism among American Catholics, Jews, and Protestants . Journal of Personality , 75 , 709 – 742 .

Dobbelaere K. ( 1981 ). Trend report: secularization: a multi-dimensional concept . Current Sociology , 29 , 3 – 153 .

Finke R. , Adamczyk A. ( 2008 ). Cross-national moral beliefs: the influence of national religious context . Sociological Quarterly , 49 , 617 – 652 .

Gorski P. S. , Altinordu A. ( 2008 ). After secularization? Annual Review of Sociology , 34 , 55 – 85 .

Halman L. , Van Ingen E. ( 2015 ). Secularization and changing moral views: European trends in church attendance and views on homosexuality, divorce, abortion, and euthanasia . European Sociological Review , 31 , 616 – 627 .

Huijts T. , Kraaykamp G. ( 2011 ). Religious involvement, religious context, and self-assessed health in Europe . Journal of Health and Social Behavior , 52 , 91 – 106 .

Jaspers E. , Lubbers M. , De Graaf N. D. ( 2007 ). ‘ Horrors of Holland’: Explaining attitude change towards euthanasia and homosexuals in The Netherlands, 1970–1998 . International Journal of Public Opinion Research , 19 , 451 – 473 .

Lim C. , MacGregor C. A. ( 2012 ). Religion and volunteering in context . American Sociological Review , 77 , 747 – 779 .

Moore L. M. , Vanneman R. ( 2003 ). Context matters. Effects of the proportion of fundamentalists on gender attitudes . Social Forces , 82 , 115 – 139 .

Pearce L. D. , Thornton A. ( 2007 ). Religious identity and family ideologies in the transition to adulthood . Journal of Marriage and Family , 69 , 1227 – 1243 .

Rijken A. J. , Liefbroer A. C. ( 2016 ). Differences in family norms for men and women across Europe . Journal of Marriage and Family , 78 , 1097 – 1113 .

Ruiter S. , De Graaf N. D. ( 2006 ). National context, religiosity and volunteering: results from 53 countries . American Sociological Review , 71 , 191 – 210 .

Stan L. ( 2010 ). Eastern orthodox views on sexuality and the body . Women's Studies International Forum , 33 , 38 – 46 .

Stark R. ( 1996 ). Religion as context: hellfire and delinquency one more time . Sociology of Religion , 57 , 163 – 173 .

Thornton A. ( 1985 ). Changing attitudes toward separation and divorce: causes and consequences . American Journal of Sociology , 90 , 856 – 872 .

Wilkins-LaFlamme S. ( 2016 ). Secularization and the wider gap in values and personal religiosity between the religious and nonreligious . Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion , 55 , 717 – 736 .

Yarhouse M. A. , Nowacki S. K. ( 2007 ). The many meanings of marriage: divergent perspectives seeking common ground . The Family Journal , 15 , 36 – 45 .

Supplementary data

Email alerts, citing articles via.

Recommend to your Library

Affiliations

Online ISSN 1468-2672
Print ISSN 0266-7215
About Oxford Academic
Publish journals with us
University press partners
What we publish
New features
Open access
Institutional account management
Rights and permissions
Get help with access
Accessibility
Advertising
Media enquiries
Oxford University Press
Oxford Languages
University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

Cookie settings
Cookie policy
Privacy policy
Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Environment
Information Science
Social Issues
Argumentative
Cause and Effect
Classification
Compare and Contrast
Descriptive
Exemplification
Informative
Controversial
Exploratory
What Is an Essay
Length of an Essay
Generate Ideas
Types of Essays
Structuring an Essay
Outline For Essay
Essay Introduction
Thesis Statement
Body of an Essay
Writing a Conclusion
Essay Writing Tips
Drafting an Essay
Revision Process
Fix a Broken Essay
Format of an Essay
Essay Examples
Essay Checklist
Essay Writing Service
Pay for Research Paper
Write My Research Paper
Write My Essay
Custom Essay Writing Service
Admission Essay Writing Service
Pay for Essay
Academic Ghostwriting
Write My Book Report
Case Study Writing Service
Dissertation Writing Service
Coursework Writing Service
Lab Report Writing Service
Do My Assignment
Buy College Papers
Capstone Project Writing Service
Buy Research Paper
Custom Essays for Sale

Can’t find a perfect paper?

Free Essay Samples
Christian Marriage

Essays on Christian Marriage

Christian Marriage: A Sacred and Lifelong CommitmentChristian marriage is an ordained union between two people in the Lord (Galatians 3:28). It is a lifelong commitment to one another, working together as a couple for the sake of a strong, godly family.The Ideal of Marriage: God's Covenant RelationshipThe ideal of marriage...

Found a perfect essay sample but want a unique one?

Request writing help from expert writer in you feed!

Christian Marriage Essay Examples

My religion essay: personal moral view.

This week’s topic is very interesting to me that I have able to awake my moral view of the world particularly my religion. Though I would not say I am too religious, I have some insistence to follow my religion. So this is my religion...

Important Aspects of Christian Marriage: the Journey Between Husband and Wife

Every year there are millions of couples in the United States alone who take a vow to love each other for better or for worse, for rich or for poor, in sickness and in health; to cherish one another until death do them part. The...

The Sacraments from the Beginning of the Christian Church to the Present Day

'When something exciting happens, it is the human thing to celebrate that happening.” Celebration is a word that we use nowadays that is linked to the sacraments. When someone gets a new job, it is natural to celebrate the event and share the joy with...

Trying to find an excellent essay sample but no results?

Don’t waste your time and get a professional writer to help!

Most Popular