Christian Marriage

Big idea

Summary

Lewis begins from Christ's teaching that husband and wife become 'one flesh,' which he treats not as poetic sentiment but as a statement of fact about how the two sexes were designed to fit together, comparable to a lock and its key or a violin and its bow forming one functioning whole. On this view, sexual intercourse outside marriage is disordered because it tries to extract one strand of union — the physical — from the fuller union of two lives meant to accompany it, rather like trying to enjoy the taste of food without swallowing or digesting it. This opening logic sets up everything that follows: marriage, for Lewis, is meant to bind the whole person, not simply the body.

From this Lewis derives the Christian teaching that marriage is meant to last for life. Churches differ on whether and when divorce may ever be permitted, but he notes they agree with one another, against the surrounding culture, that divorce resembles amputating a limb rather than dissolving a business arrangement. He then reframes the debate as a matter of justice rather than sexual morality alone: a wedding vow is a public promise, and breaking it is a form of dishonesty regardless of how much feelings have changed. Lewis is unsparing toward anyone who takes the vow while secretly intending not to keep it, calling such a person an imposter who wants the social respectability of marriage without paying its cost.

The heart of the chapter separates 'being in love,' an intense feeling, from the settled love Lewis argues actually sustains a marriage. Feelings, he observes, are inherently temporary — no one can promise to go on feeling a certain way any more than they can promise never to have a headache — and the initial thrill of any good thing, from learning to fly to moving somewhere beautiful, predictably fades and is replaced by a quieter, more durable interest, provided a person does not run from that fading in search of a fresh thrill elsewhere. Popular fiction misleads people into expecting permanent infatuation and treating its natural decline as proof a marriage has failed, when steady love, maintained by will and habit, is what the vow was meant to protect all along.

Lewis closes with two more contested claims: that a lasting partnership needs one party able to make a final decision when a couple genuinely cannot agree, since a 'council of two' allows no majority vote, and that this role should belong to the husband, whose relation to the world outside the family is, in Lewis's view, generally less consumed by loyalty to his own children than a mother's naturally is. He carefully separates this theological picture of marriage from the political question of civil divorce law, proposing that church marriage and state marriage might reasonably be governed by different rules in a mixed society of believers and non-believers.

Key points

• Marriage unites the whole person, not only the sexual dimension; casual intercourse tries to isolate one strand of a total union.
• The marriage vow is a promise, so breaking it is fundamentally a question of justice, not only of sexual conduct.
• 'Being in love' is a temporary feeling; Christian marriage rests on a deeper, will-sustained love that outlasts the feeling.
• The fading of initial romantic thrill is a normal pattern seen in many areas of life, not proof that a marriage has gone wrong.
• A permanent partnership needs some way to reach a final decision in genuine disagreement, which Lewis assigns to the husband.
• Lewis distinguishes the church's teaching on marriage from the separate political question of what civil divorce law should require of everyone.

Illustrations & analogies

• Lewis compares husband and wife to a lock and key, or a violin and bow, to argue that 'one flesh' describes a designed functional unity, not a sentiment.
• He compares premarital or extramarital sex to tasting food without swallowing it, to show how isolating physical pleasure from full union distorts its purpose.
• He compares the fading thrill of early romance to the fading excitement of learning to fly or moving to a beautiful place, arguing that a deeper interest follows if one does not flee the loss of the thrill.
• He uses the image of blue spectacles or a rut in a path to describe how books, films, and habits of imagination shape which feelings we label as 'falling in love.'

Notable lines

Being in love is a good thing, but it is not the best thing.

C. S. Lewis Book III, Ch. 6 — Christian Marriage

It is a noble feeling, but it is still a feeling.

C. S. Lewis Book III, Ch. 6 — Christian Marriage

A promise must be about things that I can do, about actions: no one can promise to go on feeling in a certain way.

C. S. Lewis Book III, Ch. 6 — Christian Marriage

Related Scripture

• Matthew 19:5-6
• John 12:24

For reflection and discussion

1. Lewis argues that a wedding vow is fundamentally a matter of justice rather than romance — how does reframing marriage vows this way change how you think about commitment generally?
2. What do you make of Lewis's claim that fading romantic intensity is not evidence a marriage has failed, but a normal stage most deep relationships pass through?
3. Lewis's argument for headship in marriage is one of the most contested parts of this chapter — which parts of his reasoning still seem sound to you, and which seem tied to his own era?