Marriage And COVID-19: Why Marriage Vow And Why Marriage Is Not About Happiness

For the past month, I have reverted to my old habit of working deep into the night. I have also resumed full-scale writing, as I seek to see the light at the end of the tunnel in my education. I also spend time reading great authors about my Christian faith.

I am just about finishing a book that has revolutionised my idea of Christian evangelism. This book, Questioning Evangelism: Engaging People’s Hearts the Way Jesus Did, is authored by Randy Newman. Given that I am reading it with a few other church brothers, I read the book slowly to pick all the salient point and to think through them carefully for online group discussion.

It was in my nocturnal mood at about 2 AM on Friday (May 1, 2020) when I received a message from a friend about marriage. I got the message just when I decided to turn on my WIFI to check a few things on my phone. The message was about a marital question that read: “Hey, Prempeh, what’s up. I have a question for you: why do true Christians say ‘for better for worse,’ as part of the marriage vow?”

I considered the question personal to my friend (even though I shouldn’t have). But I retorted: “Why shouldn’t they say it?” Just when I thought I would receive my response later today, he shot back, “Prempeh, please answer me.” At this point, I decided to go personal with him since he is married: “Boss what is happening to your marriage and why this question?” He fired the same response, “Bro, just answer me.”

I promised him that I would send him my response, since I wanted to focus on my reading. But I could not resist writing to respond to him, as I mused over his question. I revitalised my interest in the question because in March 2019, the Presiding Bishop of the Living Faith Church, Bishop David Oyedepo, caused a global stir when he said that, “For better for worse” which people recite when getting married, is a curse. I was in the thick of collecting data for my research when the infamous news about the Bishop was broadcasted.

Given that I have very least respect for the “Prosperity Gospel” of the neo-Pentecostal churches (charismatic Christianity), I decided to give a quick response. But for reasons that included my fieldwork, I decided to defer it to the appropriate time. My friend’s question has graciously offered me the opportunity to respond to questions about the nuptial vow.

One of the defects of western capitalism, with the United States of America as its epicentre, is the intermeshing of Christianity with capitalistic inkling. American “Prosperity Gospellers” including Kenneth Hagin, E. W. Kenyon, Oral Roberts, A. A. Allen, Robert Tilton, T. L. Osborn, Joel Osteen, Creflo Dollar, and Kenneth Copeland were among the pioneers and propagators to have turned the Gospel of Jesus Christ upside down.

These individuals managed to influence West African charismatic leaders like the late Benson Idahosa of Nigeria. Through Idahosa, the “Prosperity Gospel” filtered through and gained a firm root in Ghana through his protégé, Archbishop Nicholas Duncan-Williams. Given that Duncan-Williams emerged on the Ghanaian scene at a time in the late 1970s when Ghana’s economy had taken a nosedive, the “Prosperity Gospel” met the itching ears of some Ghanaians.

It is important to state that, for good reasons, the Church of Pentecost (CoP), refused to incorporate Duncan-Williams into their fold as an evangelist. Given that the CoP rejected Duncan-Williams, he moved on and founded the Christian Action Chapel International in 1979. Now on his own, he leveraged the economic and political morass of Ghana to position himself as the nation’s prayer warrior and key mediator between church members and some political elites. He became the religious ‘Big Man’. But given that the pre-democratic regime of Jerry John Rawlings was resented by some of the leaders of the historic churches, Duncan-Williams was considered a traitor who betrayed the cause of Christianity in opposing open and glare injustice of the military regime of Rawlings. But Duncan-Williams remain unfazed, he went into a full-scale prosperity preaching, which had ready acceptance because of the Akan cosmogony on salvation which is materialistic. Among the Akan, salvation is not to desire any eternal bliss in the other-world. Salvation is here and now and it is about material prosperity. Consequently, Duncan-Williams’ message had a fertile ground and a teeming youth that was ready to short-change “no pain, no gain” for “blab it, grab it”.

The flamboyant lifestyle of Duncan-Williams became a point of mimetic desire for many of the youth. Churches like the CoP and some of the historic churches were losing their youthful constituency to the “Prosperity Gospel”. In effect, all of them had to intensify the charismatisation (without “Prosperity Gospel”) that had crept into their (historic) churches since the 1960s. David Oyedepo is one such prosperity gospeller. His worldview and theology flow from the false theology of the “Prosperity Gospel”. One key thing about the “blab it, grab it” gospel is that it has a dualistic view of cosmogony. Their dualistic theology is such that there are two equal opposing forces – God and Satan, battling and vying for the souls of men and women. They import and transplant Zoroastrian dualistic theology (which some of the Jews learned during their exile in Babylon – 597 BC) into their brand of Christianity. Given that evil is personified, they concentrate on the tricks of an ancestral curse and all forms of shallow and ill-conceived theology to hoodwink their (un)suspecting congregation.

Their dualistic theology is such that every bad thing is from the devil; whereas only good things come from God. They try to excuse God from evil by heightening the witchcraft mentality among their members. As they consolidate the minds of their congregation with witchcraft, they position themselves as the experts in the deliverance ministry. They accuse the devil of everything, including headache and mundane issues of life. As far as their wit allows them, a Christian must NOT suffer. It is ungodly for a Christian to go through a crisis. It is based on this false theology that exposed Duncan-Williams to easy attacks from Avraham Ben Moshe, a confused humanist, in the face of the former’s distorted theology on theodicy.

Thriving on the falsehood of the “Prosperity Gospel”, David Oyedepo who has written some books that justify why he should live ostentatious life contends that life should be trouble-free. Given that I find it difficult to make sense of his theology, I prefer to spend my money on coconut – which gives me the energy to work and think to buy his books. But sadly, instead of sound books on the Christian faith, most churches and bookstores in Ghana are filled with these theologically cheap materials. It is sad, indeed. Why won't people see Christianity as the cause of Africa's challenges? When I first visited the United Kingdom in 2017, a friend invited to one of these African “Prosperity Gospel” churches. I reluctantly accepted the invitation. But given my interest in books, the first place I visited after their church service was their bookshelf. To my surprise (perhaps, I should not have been surprised), I found the same books in Africa on their shelves. Most of the books were about how to fight witches and a few cheap principles of becoming successful in life. At that point, I asked myself, so the witches of Africa are in the United Kingdom, too? Certainly, that was the last time I visited that church. I decided rather to join a reformed English church, where the Gospel is preached.

David Oyedepo’s distorted view about marriage stems from his distorted theology about Christianity theodicy and marriage. Heterosexual marriage is foundational to biblical and historic Christianity and also Islam. In Islam, marriage is part of worship. One particular Hadith says that whoever marries fulfils half of the requirements of his faith. In the Bible, heterosexual marriage is God’s own creation. It was His creation that was designed to continue the perpetuity of the human race. Given the centrality of marriage in procreation, God blessed the primordial couple, Adam and Eve, and commanded them to populate the earth. But since the fall of human beings in the Garden, marriage became the first attack of the devil. And since it is the foundation of human society, the devil's attack on marriage was also a direct attack on society. It was also an attack on God since God created marriage.

Because of the importance of marriage in human society, Jesus reiterated its importance and attended a wedding ceremony where He performed His first miracle. It is not a coincidence that while God created marriage, Jesus Christ performed His first marriage at a wedding to reiterate the importance of the institution. But the distortion of marriage affected virtually all aspects of human life. Different aberrant forms of marriages have engulfed the world. But in all societies, measures were put down to ensure that marriage was sustained and lasted. In some cultures, the payment of bridewealth became important for the consolidation of marriage. Sometimes the exchange of gifts was used to ensure that couples remained committed to their marriages. This was largely the case in patrilineal societies in Ghana.

One way of ensuring the longevity of marriage is through the marriage vow. Among some Akan groups in the pre-colonial era, an Akan man would say the nuptial “Foolish vow” before the marriage was established. The vow was considered “foolish” because the groom would have to say that, “This marriage I am establishing, if anything good comes out of it, it belongs to my wife and her family. If anything bad comes out of it, it belongs to me and my family.” On the surface, this vow looks, indeed, foolish. But it had its internal and sociological logics, given the matrilineality of the Akan social structure. Among the Akan, a wife does not produce children for her husband. She produces for her family. So, in many cases, Akan men depend on their sister's children. Because of this type of social system, most Akan men tended to be less responsible for their own children. The divorce rate was also high among the Akan. The brevity of Akan marriage reflected in the business type most Akan women were involved in, in the cities. Until the last few decades, most Akan women in Accra would prefer petty trading, since it was easy to fold the business and return to their families when the marriage hit the rock.

The “foolish vow” was one of the creative mitigating factors to commit the Akan man to his marriage. It was also a pragmatic measure to respond to a social system that appeared contradictory. In the western world, the industrial revolution became a major challenge to social systems, as many people moved from the countryside to the cities. While the industrial revolution happened in the 1730s in England, societies were already showing signs of attrition that affected the family. So, by the sixteenth century, the modern church recorded its first marriage vow. Consequently, the oldest standard wedding vows can be traced back to the Book of Common Prayer, by Thomas Crammer, Archbishop of Canterbury.

The oldest marriage vow read, "I, ___, take thee, ___, to be my wedded husband/wife, to have and to hold, from this day forward, for better, for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish, till death do us part, according to God's holy ordinance; and thereto I pledge thee my faith [or] pledge myself to you." Slightly like the Akan vow system, the vow demanded a commitment from the spouses to each other.

Oyedepo’s (il)logic is that the core of the vow, “for better for worse is not scriptural.” It is difficult to tell what this ardent prosperity gospeller meant by “not scriptural”. His understanding of something not being scriptural is vague and very meaningless. Possibly, by claiming it is not scriptural, he is saying the statement is not in the Bible. But incidentally, that is precisely where his “Prosperity Gospel” allows him. The “see no evil, feel no evil, name it, grab it gospel”, as I have indicated has a very poor theodicy – that is also dualistic and largely the antithesis of Christian monotheism. A Christian monotheism that affirms the sovereignty of God in all things.

While the “for better for worse” statement may not be found in the Bible, its intent is based on sound Christian theology of pain. The Bible is clear that our Christian journey is full of troubles and difficulties. Jesus Christ was clear in informing us to carry our own cross if we desire to be His followers. The cross is shameful. The cross signifies pain. The cross is not desirable. The cross is weary. The cross is death. And yet, He said we should carry it. Again, given the painfulness of the Christian journey, He never promised us an easy life, but He was categorical that the end of the journey will be worth it. He said that we will be persecuted, just as He was persecuted. Incidentally, the core apostles, apart from John the revelator, all died through grotesque ways. Because the Christina journey will be full of pain and challenges, one of the key works of the Holy Spirit is to comfort us. Why would the Holy Spirit be called the Comforter if there will be no pain and troubles?

Jesus said, as Christians, we will find trouble in this world for primarily two reasons: First, this world is not our home. Because we are in the world, but not of it (indicating that this world is not our home, but our native home is heaven), our message of salvation is counterintuitive and countercultural. The Gospel runs roughshod against every grain of human wisdom. Preaching the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ sends many Christians to prison and their early grave. For some time now, I have been reading about the persecution of Christians globally. Our message is different. And because difference is always opposed, Christians have hardly had peace of mind in this world. Even countries in the west that once believed had their foundation on the Christian faith have literally turned their backs against the Christian faith. Indeed, when we are attacked, we are reminded of Jesus’ saying that, “In this world, you will suffer persecution and troubles, but take heart! I have overcome the world (John 16:33). He also said that a time will come when those who kill us will think they are doing God a service (John 16:2).

The second reason why the marriage vow is based on the existential truth of pain in the life of the Christian is that creation itself is against humanity. The world never runs out of natural and human-induced disasters. We never run short of natural disasters like floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, tsunamis, and storms. We also suffer from epidemic diseases, as well as non-communicable diseases that take the wind out of our sail. As I write, the world has literally been brought to a halt because of a menacing virus. The virus is giving us a run for our money and brains. Companies are folding up, our basic freedoms to movement, social gregariousness, and trade have all been upended because of the coronavirus (COVID-19). These are disasters that strike the world with or without human complicity. As Christians, we know that all these disasters are because creation has been subjected to futility as a result of sin (Romans 8:22).

In the whirlwind of the existential reality of evil that upsets every aspect of life, including marriage, is the human selfishness and inclinations to happiness. For centuries, philosophers and theologians have debated the real purpose of life. Different answers have been given to explain why we are here on earth. But it appears that all the responses to the reason for our existence find convergence in the fact that human beings want to maximize happiness and minimize pain. This is so true that I may daresay that all the disciplines in our academic institutions are geared towards achieving the epicurean ideal of hedonistic life. In fact, when Epicurus (342 – 270 BC) said that our life’s goal should be to minimize pain and maximize pleasure, he was speaking for virtually every one of us. But hedonism is measured differently.

Regardless of how we measure hedonism, it is true that most of us will seek avoidable pains. This logic is so true in marriage for various reasons. I will limit myself to just two such reasons. The first is that marriage is an institution that brings two strangers and non-kin couple into a relationship in ways that begins a new family. In my African Family and Political Systems course at the master’s level at the Institute of African Studies, University of Ghana, in 2009, one of the questions we were given by the anthropologist, Prof Albert Kanlisi Awedoba, was to analyse the statement, “Blood is thicker than water.” I was so passionate about the topic that I wrote an essay that scored grade ‘A’.

This old German (later English statement) which can be traced back in the twelve century means that familial bonds will always be stronger than bonds of friendship or love. This is precisely because we do not choose our siblings and so we cannot unchoose them. No matter how our siblings turn to be, they are still our blood. The fact that siblings shared the same womb is enough to connect them in ways that almost nothing can separate them. Consequently, while sibling conflict and fratricide was the first consequence of evil to hit the human race, sibling conflict will always be covered by the sacredness of common blood – consanguinity. Sigmund Freud, the psychoanalyst, was right on his theory on sibling conflict.

But the opposite is the case with marriage. Marriage is a union of a biological male and biological female who are unrelated and strangers. They have no connections or bond whatsoever. The marriage union is based on a word – the vow, not blood. The word creates a covenant, not a contract. The word brings into existence something that never existed. In fact, the strangeness of a couple is such that research has shown that most people never married their first love in life. This makes it all the more difficult to live in marriage. In the same way, research has shown that men are “naturally” not monogamous. Men “naturally” have a propensity to have sexual congress with multiple women. The challenge is even that most men do not engage in sex because of love. Most men engage in sex because of lust or simply to satisfy a biological need, not social bonding. This is true of even animals. Given this truism, which is also because of sin, most men would struggle to remain committed to only one woman. This is also compounded by the fact that it could be tiring just seeing one woman throughout your life till death do you part.

To add to this is also the fact that your spouse is most likely not going to be your best friend. Just look at it this way: before you met your spouse, you had already built a core base of friendship from childhood. Most of your core friends were your basic schoolmates. And because our childhood friends tend to register their place in our social fiber early in life, it becomes almost impossible to replace them or even shun them, because of the collective memories you share. I remember my primary six teacher at the Kotobabi Presbyterian Primary School (KPPS), Mr Marcus Agbayome, teaching us the song, "Make new friends, but keep the old" in 1995. This song is so true that, today, some of my primary school friends, after more than two decades of going our separate ways have congregated on social media, where we share our collective memories. But it could be that you met your spouse for less than a decade before your married. Consequently, the friendship bond is not “natural”. It must be cultivated and nurtured to grow. In many cases, it may take time. And during the period of the bonding, the fading of the courtship charms begins to threaten the marriage. This is precisely because, during courtship, each presents his or her best. Flaws are consciously and scrupulously hidden. There are lots of pretensions to ensure that marriage is established. After the marriage, all the weaknesses begin to show. After the marriage, the real “she” and the real “he” is made known.

What happens in a marriage when all the fault lines are brought to the surface? What happens when strangers begin to feel the need to pull apart? What happens when the physical attractions begin to fade? What happens when children become a worry to the independent lives couples had enjoyed? What happens when one of the spouses falls sick? What happens when a spouse loses his or her job? What happens when childbirth delays? What happens when one of the spouses begins to show less commitment to the marriage? What happens when there are external family intrusions? Let us answer these questions against the background that these are not blood relations. These are strangers who have been bonded by words. Since marriage relation is not consanguineous, how would the couple survive it when the happiness of the wedding day begins to evaporate? What happens when the physical looks of the marriage pictures (hanging on the wall) that were manicured with makeup begin to show different after childbirth?

There is no doubt that most people will feel the temptation to pull away from the marriage. And since human beings basically seek to avoid pain, as they look forward to maximizing happiness, it is obvious that hitches in marriages are likely to cause challenges. More so, since couples do not relate by blood to say “blood is mutually inclusive,” the possibility of a marriage hitting the rock is very high in the face of difficulties. But as I have said, difficulties – natural or manmade – are existential part life. No amount of shouting the devil out will save any marriage from troubles. Every Christian marriage, as part of one’s Christian journey, will be tested. Will our marriages stand the test (of time)? In response to this question, most people are now opting for cohabitation and sexual congress society, where one can have sex without commitment to a relationship. Some are also becoming very atavistic by calling for a “restoration” of archaic polygyny.

From my discussion so far, it becomes obvious that the fleeting illusions of "they became happy ever after," in the theology of prosperity gospellers is downright nonsense! It does not cohere with the realities the Bible offers the Christian. It does not resonate with the Christian vision of life and marriage. It is at best an idiotic illusion that must be rejected. But the Christian response to all the above questions is that marriage is a covenant, not a contract. As a covenant, it must be established with words. It is a form of parity covenant with God as the star witness. The idea of “for better for worse” is to serve two main purposes:

First, it is to remind the couple of the true nature of the Christian journey, which cascades into the intimacy of marriage. Second, it prepares the couple who say it with meaning that they must brace themselves for all the storms that will hit their marriage. But, the vow ends with “God being my helper.” The invocation of God’s help is to assure the couple that Jesus will be in the boat with them. So that when the storms come, He will graciously calm it.

In the face of COVID-19 lockdown, most couples are going to spend time more together than their honeymoon. But it is going to be without the “sweetness” and “glamour” and glimmerings of the honeymoon. It is going to be real. It is going to be real boredom. It is going to be a real difficulty. It is going to be real compassion fatigue for your spouse's pain or illness. But, let the vow you took continue to reverberate in your mind and heart. And let the truth of the ever-abiding presence of God the Holy Spirit keep you going.

In conclusion, if we desire to reconstitute the heterosexual marriage institution, we must say the vow with meaning. We must not daydream that life is all about prosperity and happiness. Life is about joy in God, not in any material thing on earth. This is precisely because anything material that did not always exist, but came into existence will equally cease to exist! Trust nothing material, including the heavens of prosperity gospellers. But the Christian joy is the kind of joy that makes a Christian sing, “Through it all, I have learned to trust in Jesus Christ; through it all, I have learned to depend upon His word.” It is the kind of joy that helps the Christian to survive the difficulties of marriage all the time because the end of our journey is glorious. All couples should bear in mind that as they (re)say the marriage vow with meaning, they are affirming the biblical truth that, “While Jesus did not promise us an easy life, He said the end will be worth it.” We don’t wish our pain away with façade “Prosperity Gospel”, we face it with the truth of our ever-abiding saviour, Jesus Christ.

Satyagraha

Charles Prempeh ([email protected]), African University College of Communications, Accra