Kudos, Then Ironic Comments

Today I wish to write about a subject that appears in the Bible but that is seldom applied in modern life as it ought to be, but first I would like to give some kudos. Every day I receive an e-mail from Thisistheway.org, with a byline from Mr. Clyde Kilough, President of the United Church of God, and today's e-mail merits praise and attention. The subject of authority and service, and how leaders ought to serve the people they lead, rather than lord it over them, is a frequent (and hopefully not too tiresome), subject of my writings, both public and private. The forms of democracy alone are not sufficient, for a people that does not possess self-control is not fit to rule over a nation (for one must first govern one's self before one can govern others). Nonetheless, the example of Jesus Christ in his service to mankind (through footwashing, instruction, healing, and his offering of himself to remove the penalty of sin from mankind and heal the alienation between mankind and God) and the example of Abraham Lincoln, himself a martyr to the cause of freedom of the oppressed, servant leadership, and democracy were excellent choices to illuminate how leaders should behave.

However, I do not wish this to be the subject of this post, as I write about it frequently enough. Today I would like to write about a different matter entirely, and one that was provoked by my reading of a most excellent book by a fellow named Mr. Ron Dart, called Law And Covenant. In this book (which I would wholeheartedly recommend to any who wish to understand the true covenantal nature of law and its continuing applicability to humankind in a variety of aspects), there is an interesting comparison of the relationship between a man and his concubine and a man and his wife that is a subject of great importance for our times, and one that is often not recognized by preachers and concubines alike.

Concubinage strikes the modern ear as a discordant, and potentially exotic, reminder of past ages. I am reminded myself of references of Solomon's 700 wives and 300 concubines, and of the movie "Fareware, My Concubine," about early 20th century China (if I remember correctly). However, concubinage is not only a quaint historical notion of bygone eras where women dwelled with men without any contractural relationship, and without any guarantee of good behavior on the part of their lover beyond his good will. It is, in fact, a very real, and very common phenomenon. We, though, call a concubine by a different name today--a live-in girlfriend.

In societies where concubinage was recognized, concubines were universally considered of a lower status than wives. While a man might be attached to his hausfrau (as the Germans called such a woman), she had no legal rights (unlike a wife). If he died, she was entirely at the mercy of his will (if he provided for her), because she had no rights to his estate. Her children were not considered legitimate heirs, and were not in line for any inheritence a man might leave. Any states or nations that recognized common-law marriages required lengthy times of cohabitation before granting such a status, while a newly married bride carred the status of a wife as a result of the contractual relationship even on her honeymoon. One of the most grevious wrongs of slavery in the American South was the denial of marriage to slaves, who could conduct informal marriages (by jumping over the broom and so forth) but who could not protect their relationships from the threat of having a husband and wife and children sold seperately to different owners in distant places. Furthermore, a slave husband could not even assure the safety of his wife from the affections of the master, should he choose to take a concubine among his slaves.

The insecurity that results from relationships of concubinage is profound, and it seems obvious that someone who could be a wife would never want to be a concubine. Between a wife and a husband there is a mutuality of obligations, a contractual relationship that the ancients considered a "parity covenant" (a relationship among equals). Both the man and wife have legal and moral obligations to their spouses, and to the children of their union, and their joining in marriage brings honor to themselves, each other, and their families. In contrast, the joining in concubinage brings no legal obligations, and the relationship itself is only as stable as the affections of either partner, bringing no honor to either but only the fear that someone's affection might grow cold and leave a partner and a family without their main provider.

Given this rather grim contrast between the honor of being a wife and the fearful and insecure position of being a concubine, one wonders why anyone would choose to be a concubine? This is not to say that the lot of wives is always pleasant (nor that of husbands either), but the contractual protections of marriage mean something, even in these debased times. Why have women, who call themselves enlightened, traded honor and security for insecurity in the name of "freedom?" It would be like a worker trading a contractual job for a job (in a place like Florida) where there was employment at will (which means an employer could fire you for any or no reason without legal recourse), often for a lower salary. Who would make that kind of trade?

Why have live-in relationships, with all of the insecurity that result from not having a covenantal relationship or a secure status, become a status of freedom? Is freedom merely freedom from bonds and connections with other people (bonds which form anyway as a result of intimacy and friendship) or is it freedom from fear and insecurity and the gaining of a lasting and honored place in a family, community, and society? Is it better to have many lovers in a lifetime, having to move because a relationship has gone shower when dwellings were shared, or worse (as happened to a close friend of mine) having to share an apartment with an ex-girlfriend for months because a lease had yet to expire after having started a new relationship with someone else? Wouldn't one rather have someone one knew well, and had committed to spending the rest of one's life with, to dwell with through the ups and downs that life provides? Even as a man (who has no wife or concubine) I would greatly prefer, for her sake as well as my own, to have a wife secure in her position and knowledgeable of the respect I held her in rather than a live-in girlfriend insecure in my affections to her, and afraid that every female friend of mine was a potential love interest and rival for my affections. Hopefully there are some other people around who feel the same way as I do.

The current rise of concubinage (albeit under a new name) presents many grave difficulties for families and society. The decline of the honor of fatherhood has been frequently and ably commented on by others. The lack of loyalty that people show to each other in society results from a lack of understanding of covenantal relationships and the responsibilities all parties have therein. Frequently, in churches, live-in relationships are considered as fornication, and people involved in such relationships are told in more conservative congregations that they are not welcome at church as long as they "live in sin." Truth be told, though, concubinage did not result in any loss of rights to fellowship (one things of the Levite with the concubine in that tragic story in Judges). Concubinage appears to be a legitimate way, if less honorable than marriage, in showing the world of one's relationship. Fornication appears to be related to furtive and private attempts at sexual intimacy, while a live-in relationship is a public show of a relationship, and hence is no longer fornication.

What then, remains to be done about this worrisome societal trend? For one, it appears that the demonization of the practice needs to stop. While concubinage (a live-in relationship) is inferior to marriage, one does not communicate this fact through throwing people who practice it (no matter how much one may disapprove of it) out of church. It is not, for example, to be compared to the famous case in Corinthians where the man had his stepmother, itself a particular relationship forbidden by the law as being incestuous. It does appear, though, that young women and young men need to be educated about this ancient practice, as a reminder that it is not a new and enlightened practice but rather one that has put women and children at risk for many centuries. As a wise man once said, there is nothing new under the sun.