My favorite section in this book is “Christian Marriage.” It goes hand in hand with his argument for morality (which is really solid and refreshing in our world today), and says that the reason why this is so important to observe is that “those who indulge in it are trying to isolate one kind of union (the sexual) from all the other kinds of union which are intended to go along with it and make up the total union” (105). This reminds me of Jeffry R. Holland’s talk “Of Souls, Symbols, and Sacraments.” It is not that God is just having a great time making rules for us and spoiling our fun, he is trying to show us that we are soiling something sacred that is meant only for the kind of commitment you have in marriage.
I have a lot more thoughts on “Christian Marriage,” but the most powerful part of it was establishing the difference between being in love and the kind of love that follows as a result of it. We have plenty of media propaganda telling us what love is—most of it the glorification of fornication, etc. but this seems to be a bit closer to the line. “Being in love is a good thing, but it is not the best thing” (108). Really though, if we stayed “in love” for too long we would never get anything done. “Knowledge can last, principles can last, habits can last; but feelings come and go.” Lewis continues to say that “ceasing to be ‘in love’ need not mean ceasing to love. Love is this second sense—love as distinct from ‘being in love’—is not merely a feeling. It is a deep unity, maintained by the will and deliberately strengthened by habit; reinforced by (in Christian marriages) the grace which both partners ask, and receive, from God” (109). I have a good friend who once asked me what was more important to me, love or loyalty. When I responded two years ago I said love. My answer is much different now. Marriage is not just about being in love. It is about commitment—something I think society has seriously underplayed when the lovey-dovey wanes.
I have a lot more thoughts on “Christian Marriage,” but the most powerful part of it was establishing the difference between being in love and the kind of love that follows as a result of it. We have plenty of media propaganda telling us what love is—most of it the glorification of fornication, etc. but this seems to be a bit closer to the line. “Being in love is a good thing, but it is not the best thing” (108). Really though, if we stayed “in love” for too long we would never get anything done. “Knowledge can last, principles can last, habits can last; but feelings come and go.” Lewis continues to say that “ceasing to be ‘in love’ need not mean ceasing to love. Love is this second sense—love as distinct from ‘being in love’—is not merely a feeling. It is a deep unity, maintained by the will and deliberately strengthened by habit; reinforced by (in Christian marriages) the grace which both partners ask, and receive, from God” (109). I have a good friend who once asked me what was more important to me, love or loyalty. When I responded two years ago I said love. My answer is much different now. Marriage is not just about being in love. It is about commitment—something I think society has seriously underplayed when the lovey-dovey wanes.