THE INFLUENCE OF EUROPEAN TRADITIONS ON THE LAWS OF THE CHURCH RELATING TO MARRIAGE BY CHIEF JOHN MENSAH INTRODUCTION When

Christianity was brought to Africa from Western Europe the early missionaries managed to create the unfortunate impression that it was the religion of the Europeans. They did virtually anything they liked with it and interpreted it in any way that suited their purposes. They preached to us to love our neighbours as ourselves while their compatriots, who were also supposed to be Christians, shipped away millions of our neighbours as slaves, under absolutely horrendous conditions, to other peoples countries they had forcibly occupied. Presumably our neighbours were not their neighbours so they were under no obligation to love them; nor us, for that matter. In South Africa the Dutch Reformed Church even sought to show from the Bible not only that the African is not the neighbour of the European but also that the African is sub-human. The Europeans had meanwhile classified even the most innocuous of our traditions as heathen and, as recently as the late nineteen forties, any school pupils who participated in traditional drumming and dancing could face dismissal from their mission schools. Those who merely went to watch were subjected to strokes of the cane. The people who were visiting these indignities on us had had their own fetishes which they had glorified in all manner of ways. Many of the months of the year are named after European pagan gods and goddesses. January is named after Janus, the Roman god of gates and doors; February is named after Februa, a Roman pagan feast of purification; March is named after Mars, the Roman god of war; May is named after Maia, a minor Roman goddess, the mother of Mercury; and June is named after the goddess Juno who was Jupiters wife. Also apart from our earth all the other planets in our solar system are named after fetishes. Mercury, Venus, (Earth), Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto are all Roman gods or goddesses. Even in recent times the American space programme which landed Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin on the moon in 1969 was named after Apollo, the Greek god of prophecy whose oracle the ancient Greeks used to consult at Delphi. All these fetishes of the Europeans have thus been immortalized and we have been left with no choice but to accept the glorification of their deities. Perhaps of most concern to us as Christians is the fact that even our Christmas day, 25th December, is not the date on which Christ was born but rather the date of a Roman heathen midwinter festival.

WESTERN MARRIAGE TRADITIONS Now let us examine specifically Western traditions as they relate to marriage. In both Greek and Latin mythology their gods had only one wife each although they had several concubines, some of them human. Page 1 of 8

Also as regards human beings one finds a practice of monogamy whether in mythology or real life. The sack of Troy is reputed to have taken place about 1200 BC but all the principal characters were monogamous. Hector, the principal Trojan warrior, had Andromache as his only wife. Menelaus, the King of Sparta had one wife Helen, whose abduction by Paris was the cause of the Trojan war. Helens father Tyndareus also had one wife Leda. Sophocles, the great Greek poet and dramatist died about five hundred years before Christ but his fictional Oedipus, King of Thebes, in the play Oedipus The King had only one wife Jocaster, who turned out to be his own mother. And Creon, Jocasters brother also had one wife Eurydice. Nearer to and into the Christian era people like Julius Caesar, Brutus, Macbeth, King Agrippa (before whom St. Paul defended himself) and all the other Kings, Princes and noblemen of Europe were monogamous. It is possible, though improbable, that some of the common people of the time may have practised polygamy which nobody cared to write about. We note, however, that it is what the noblemen practised that got forced on the plebians by law or was copied by them to become the common cultural practice. As far as we can determine therefore, Europe was practising monogamy several centuries before the time of Christ. THE BIBLE ON MARRIAGE The first reference to wife in the Bible is the oft-quoted passage in Genesis 2: 24 which states: For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife and they will become one flesh (NIV) And this is interpreted as meaning that one man should have only one wife. Indeed so important is this interpretation that in our church, as in most Christian churches, anyone who has more than one wife is barred from receiving Holy Communion. The laws of God as given to Moses on Mount Sinai we all know as The Ten Commandments. In Deuteronomy 5: 1 21 Moses called together all the people of Israel and read the Ten Commandments to them and he ended by saying: These are the Commandments the Lord proclaimed in a loud voice to your whole assembly there on the mountain from out of the fire, the cloud and the deep darkness, and he added nothing more.. Deuteronomy 5 : 22 (NIV) Moses says the Lord added nothing more. He did not say Thou shalt not have two wives And it was not out of forgetfulness because God CANNOT forget. It is most ironical that, being only human, we can break any of the laws the Lord specifically gave to us and still receive Holy Communion once we are penitent. But you cannot receive Holy Communion if you have more than one wife a law which the Lord certainly did not give. It is clear beyond any shadow of doubt that if the Lord considered polygamy as an abomination it would have been so stated in the Bible.

Page 2 of 8

THE BIBLE ON POLYGAMY While it is not being suggested that every man in Israel in Old Testament times was a polygamist let us have a look at a few examples of the marriage practices at the time. In Judges 12: 8 9 we read: After Jephthah, Ibzan from Bethlehem led Israel. He had thirty sons and thirty daughters (GNB). A little later in Judges 12: 13-14 we read: After Elon, Abdon son of Hillel from Pirathon led Israel. He had forty sons.. (GNB) In neither instance are we explicitly told that they had several wives but the inference is obvious. Judges 8: 29 30 is more lucid; it reads: Gideon went back to his own home and lived there. he had seventy sons, because he had many wives (GNB) The story of Joseph is perhaps one of the best known in the Bible. Josephs brothers who sold him into captivity were his half brothers. Genesis 37: 2 reads: Joseph, a young man of seventeen was tending the flocks with his brothers, the sons of Bilhah and the sons of Zilpah, his fathers wives(NIV). We also read about Davids wives and children in 1 Chronicles 3: 1-9. His wives were Ahinoam, Abigail, Maacah, Haggith, Abital, Eglah and Bethsheba. There are several other instances of polygamy in the Bible (see also Gen. 4: 19, Gen. 26: 34 & 28: 9, 2 Chronicles 11: 21, 13: 21, 21: 14, 24: 3, 2 Kings 24: 15 and Daniel 5: 2) and it is worth noting that none of the men was punished by God for the sole reason of having more than one wife. In Exodus 34: 7 we read that God will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the childrens children, to the third and fourth generations (RSV). And indeed the children and women of Sodom were not spared during the destruction. The sins of their fathers had been visited upon them. We also read in Genesis Chapters 6-7 of the destruction of the world by flood. There certainly were children who were innocent of the iniquities of the adults but they were not spared either. The sins of their fathers had been visited upon them too. As we have seen already, none of the men who had several wives was punished by God for that. So if indeed polygamy is an iniquity in the sight of God one would expect the iniquity of the fathers to be visited on the children. Rather it is the direct opposite that we find. Josephs father, Jacob, had many wives but far from being punished for his fathers polygamy, Joseph was rather chosen by God to avert the consequences of a devastating famine in the whole of Egypt and Palestine. When David committed adultery with Bathsheba and arranged for her husband Uriah to be killed in battle, he had broken the covenant of the Lord and the Lord punished him by making the son Bathsheba had borne for him to die. A penitent David thereafter wrote Psalm 51, whose Hebrew title is A Psalm of David after the Prophet Nathan had spoken to him about his adultery with Page 3 of 8

Bathsheba. But David never apologized for having those many wives, nor did the prophet Nathan castigate him about that. (2 Samuel 12: 1 15) Indeed all indications from the Bible are that God never considered David as having broken any of His laws by having many wives. 1 Kings 15: 4 5 reads: But for Davids sake the Lord his God gave Abijah a son to rule after him in Jerusalem and to keep Jerusalem secure. The Lord did this because David had done what pleased him and had never disobeyed any of his commands, except in the case of Uriah the Hittite. (GNB) Adultery and murder, we are told, are against the laws of God but not a mention of polygamy. This contradicts our churchs edicts which appear to consider polygamy a more serious sin than murder as we shall see later. FORBIDDEN SEXUAL PRACTICES Leviticus chapter 18 contains sexual practices which are forbidden by the Lord. These are the laws of God. Verse 8 reads: Do not disgrace your father by having intercourse with any of his other wives and verse 18 reads: Do not take your wifes sister as one of your wives, as long as your wife is living (GNB). Another of Gods laws is given in Exodus 21: 10 which reads: If a man takes a second wife, he must continue to give his first wife the same amount of food and clothing and the same rights she had before (GNB). How can anyone read these laws of God and deduce therefrom that God intended every man to have only one wife? Surprisingly attempts appear to have been made in the past to obscure the meanings of some passages in the Bible to make them conform to European preconceptions. Leviticus 18: 8 referred to earlier used to be rendered as: The nakedness of thy fathers wife shalt thou not uncover. It is thy fathers nakedness. (KJV) Certainly, thy fathers wife who is not your mother could be the woman your father married after the death of your mother and not necessarily one of his other wives. Also Leviticus 18: 18 used to be rendered as: Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time (KJV) Whatever that is supposed to mean. Page 4 of 8

Let us note that whereas it is clearly not against any of Gods laws, bigamy is a crime in all countries in Europe - a crime punishable with imprisonment. On the other hand Leviticus 18: 22 clearly states: No man is to have sexual relations with another man, God hates that. (GNB) And Leviticus 20: 13 states If a man lies with a male as with a woman both of them have committed abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them (RSV) But in most countries in Europe, sodomy has been renamed homosexual practice and is permitted by law between so called consenting adults. Thus Christian Europe chooses which of Gods laws to obey while at the same time imposing its cultural practices on us as laws of God. NEW TESTAMENT EDICTS There is a tendency for some people, when it suits their purposes, to seek to disregard what the Old Testament says on certain issues. So let us take a look at what the New Testament says on marriage. 1 Corinthians 7: 1 - 3 states: Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. and it adds in verses 6 - 7: I say this as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that (NIV) The first part of this quotation has generally been trumpeted as a directive that one man should have one wife. Let us for the moment go along with that interpretation. We note that when early Jewish Christians were insisting that all Gentile converts should be circumcised, the Apostles showed us how to separate quintessential Christianity from the inconsequential. They ruled that circumcision had nothing to do with Christianity. (Acts 15: 5-29; 1 Cor. 7: 18-19). Paul showed the same discernment when it came to marriage. The Gentiles of Corinth were Greeks just like Hector, Menelaus, Tyndareus, Oedipus and Creon mentioned earlier and had always been monogamous. When he told them that each should have his own wife he was only acknowledging what had been their practice for several centuries. Let us not forget that European Moslems have to remain monogamous by law although their religion permits polygamy.

Page 5 of 8

Some other New Testament references to marriage occur at 1 Timothy 3 which talks about leaders of the church having one wife while Eph. 5: 21-33, Col. 3: 18-19 and 1 Peter 3 all talk only about wives submitting to their husbands and husbands loving their wives. When Jesus himself found it necessary for the protection of women to vary the Jewish practice on divorce, he not only gave a reason for doing so but he quoted from the Old Testament to support his stand (Matt. 19: 3-9). Also on the road to Emmaus, Jesus quoted extensively from the Old Testament to show that he is the Messiah (Luke 24: 25-27). To suggest therefore that one sentence of Pauls to the converts of Corinth, which did not even specifically mention the Old Testament, would nevertheless have the effect of negating large tracts of it, by condemning polygamy, appears not only out of character but a disingenuous attempt to attribute to Paul what he clearly never intended. Indeed if we revisit 1 Cor. 7: 1-3 and take a closer look at this pet quotation of the protagonists of monogamy, we can see clearly that this part of Pauls letter was in answer to a specific question from the Corinthians. Their question was whether they should emulate the examples of Christ and Paul himself and remain celibate. One does not have to be overly intelligent to deduce that the question was not about polygamy and that the answer too had absolutely nothing to do with polygamy. The suggestion is that there is nothing in the New Testament either which forbids the practice of polygamy. Rather those, to whom Paul granted concessions in the early days of the Church, have taken hold of Christs Church and are insisting that what is essentially their cultural practice is a law of Christs Church. Since other religions permit polygamy, we are entitled to wonder what there is about it that makes it even more heinous than murder in the eyes of the church. Let us look at the realities of a situation which borders on the ridiculous. A convicted murderer in prison awaiting execution may have his confession heard by a priest and be given Holy Communion before he is executed. But the man who has two wives and is on his death bed will not be given Holy Communion. We are being told by inference that polygamy is a more serious transgression than murder. But is this a reasonable proposition? The only way the polygamist on his death bed could obtain dispensation to receive Holy Communion would be for him to divorce all but one of his wives and wed the remaining one. But the Bible tells us in Mal. 2: 16, which incidentally was addressed to people who were practising polygamy: I hate divorce says the Lord God of Israel, I hate it when one of you does such a cruel thing to his wife. (GNB) And Matt. 5: 31-32, Matt. 19: 3-6, Luke 16: 18 and 1 Cor. 7: 10-11 all speak against divorce. Is not that indeed the reason why the church has always been against divorce in monogamous marriages? How do we reconcile this position with the apparent contradiction in the insistence that polygamists should divorce all but one of their wives? Page 6 of 8

This may sound preposterous but it looks as if in its quest to force European cultural practices on us, our church has placed the polygamist in a situation where he has to break the laws of God before he can satisfy the rules of the church. Indeed since we believe that the sacrament of Holy Communion is necessary for our salvation it cannot be right to deny it to anybody except such denial is based strictly on the laws of God and not on the basis of someone elses cultural practices. There may be very good social, demographic and ethical reasons why polygamy is undesirable but that still does not make monogamy a law of God. WEDDING AND ITS EUPHEMISM OF BLESSING We are not forgetting that even if you are married by our customs and also legally to only one wife you still cannot receive Holy Communion if you have not had your marriage blessed. I doubt if there is anybody in our church who can have any objections to being blessed. People indeed have their new houses, cars, farms etc. blessed. But nobody has made it a law yet that if you sleep in an unblessed house you cannot receive Holy Communion. The blessing of marriage or, to give it its proper name, wedding still remains nothing but a European cultural imposition. We have our own marriage ceremonies and one is entitled to wonder why the priest cannot be invited to these ceremonies to bless once and for all the marriages as they are customarily contracted. After all, the drumming and dancing which the Europeans ignorantly condemned as heathen did not remain consigned to the scrap heap. We now proudly play our drums and dance to the glory of God in our Churches. What therefore has prevented the acceptance of our cultural practices when it comes to marriage? Why indeed should the European go through one formal marriage ceremony when we, much poorer though we are, are expected to go through many formal ceremonies - knocking, customary marriage, ordinance marriage & wedding before the church recognizes us as married to enable us receive Holy Communion? One does not have to be particularly perceptive to notice that about fifty percent of the weddings that take place in our church are between couples who have been married for several years and have had children. That is because one has to be reasonably wealthy to be able to go through marriage and wedding at the same time to retain the status of a communicant. What appears to be happening in our church is that children receive Holy Communion until early adulthood when they get married. Then because they cannot afford a wedding, they cease to be communicants until middle age when after seeing their children through school, they have their marriages blessed and resume receiving Holy Communion. For a good percentage, marriage marks the end of Holy Communion. The very important injunction that Jesus gave, at the Last Supper saying do this in memory of me was without condition. But it has thus been made to become a privilege of the affluent because we want to accept whatever interpretation Europeans place on the Bible. Page 7 of 8

Should we always sit down for Europeans and their cousins, who have occupied other peoples lands, to interpret the Bible to us? Are we trying to prove the Dutch Reformed Church right? Are we sub-human? For me the answer is No! No! No! But why cant our Churches prove it to us? Let us conclude by repeating two questions already posed because they are extremely important. 1. 2. What has prevented our church from the acceptance of our traditional practices when it comes to marriage? Why cant the priest be invited to our ceremonies to bless the marriages as they customarily contracted?

Let us find answers to these questions now. Let us not wait, as we did in the case of drumming and dancing, to be dragged kicking and screaming to new practices by the defection of our members to the Penteco-charismatic Churches. Let us for once set the pace; after all ours is the oldest Church in Christendom.

Lecture delivered at the monthly meeting of THE BROTHERHOOD OF MARTYRS OF UGANDA CATHOLIC CHURCH, Mamprobi, Accra on 6th October, 1996 (The Brotherhood is the Mens Fellowship of the Catholic Parish of Martyrs of Uganda). BIBLIOGRAPHY GNB KJV NIV RSV - Good News Bible - King James Version - New International Version - Revised Standard Version

Orville J.Nave: Naves Topical Bible Virgil: The Aenead, Penguin Classics W. F. Jackson Knight, 1956 Paul Roche : The Oedipus Plays of Sophocles, Mentor Classic 1958 by Paul Roche

Page 8 of 8