FIDELITY: SEXUAL AND OTHERWISE
A sermon by Robert M. Eddy, M.Div
Interim Minister, Unitarian Universalist Church of Pensacola, FL
Delivered April 2, 2000
 

FIRST READING
From "Gifts from the Sea" by Anne Morrow Lindbergh:
A good relationship has a pattern like a dance and is built on some of the same rules. The partners do not need to hold on tightly, because they move in the same pattern, intricate but gay, and swift and free, like a county dance of Mozart's. To touch heavily would be to arrest the pattern and freeze the movement, to check the endlessly changing beauty of its unfolding. There is no place here for the possessive clutch, the clinging arm, the heavy hand, only the barest touch in passing. Now arm in arm, now face to face, now back to back, it does not matter which, because they know they are partners moving to the same rhythm, creating a pattern together and being invisibly nourished by it. The joy of such a pattern is not only the joy of creation or the joy of participation; it is also the joy of living in the moment. Lightness of touch and living in the moment are intertwined.
SECOND READING
Our second reading this morning is from a novel by Catherine Helen Spence from the chapter titled, "The Peculiar Institution of Columba"
In this Utopian novel, Miss Spence imagines a lost civilization created by Scottish settlers in a remote valley in Central America. It is discovered by Hugh Keith, a young physician from Melbourne, Australia, one of whose ancestor, also named Hugh Keith, left Scotland in 1745 at the head of a colonizing expedition. The entire party was thought lost at sea but they actually survived and founded a colony in Central America. The narrator has just discovered them after crossing "impassable" deserts and climbing high mountains to reach the valley in which the "Columbans" and their descendants have been living in isolation for over 150 years. He is directed to the house
of a man who bears the same name as himself. He goes to the house and discovers that the "man of the house" is out so he addresses the young woman who has welcomed him as "Mrs. Keith". She replies:
WOMAN: ‘But I’m not Mistress Keith. I’m only Liliard Abercrombie.’
MAN: ‘The descendent of the John Abercrombie who was one of the leaders of the expedition along with Archibald Keith, my ancestor and Hugh’s?’
WOMAN: [Yes] I am John Abercrombie’s great-great-great-great-grandchild.
MAN: ‘Well, Miss Abercrombie, I have no doubt we are related somehow.
WOMAN: ‘But I’m not Miss Abercrombie either. . . . I’m Hugh Keith’s bride.’
MAN ‘Oh engaged -betrothed- tristed to be married,’
WOMAN ‘ Oh no, I’m only handfasted to Hugh Keith; only handfasted for a year and a day. Surely you have heard of such a thing.’
MAN [ aside] ‘Handfasted ?’ I Recollected the passage in Sir Walter Scott’s novel The Monastery, which he mentioned the Border rite by which a man and a woman bound themselves to mutual fidelity for a year and a day, at the expir[ation] of which time, they were free either to separate forever, or to be married for life tightly as the Roman Catholic church could do it. I
recollected too the indignant denunciation of the preacher of the [Presbyterian] Faith, Henry Wardour, of the practice which bound the stronger to the weaker while she was the object of desire, and let him throw her off when she was ... soiled, besmirched and despised into a cold and cruel world, and how heartily I had agreed with his eloquent protest. And here was as handsome and apparently as virtuous a young woman as I had ever seen in my life, telling me without a blush that she was handfasted to my namesake, Hugh Keith, whose house sheltered me, whose dinner I was devouring, and whose coming home was expected ...
MAN TO WOMAN: ‘does everybody take this extraordinary step in the first place?"
WOMAN ‘Everybody. We cannot be married in Columba without it." ...
MAN ‘But I don’t understand this strange heathenish custom of yours ... surely the Bible gives no warrant for it.’
WOMAN ‘[In]deed, the Bible gives warrant for a lot of things a great deal worse ... and [handfasting] is far from being done in a heathenish spirit.
No, the handfasting is a solemn religious ordinance gone into with prayer and solemn thoughts ..."
MAN ‘But [surely] both of you would have been glad to have made it as binding as marriage ... ‘
WOMAN ‘[Well] Hugh would [have] , but then he was in a measure beside himself that I consented [even] to the handfasting ... ; but for me, I thought then, and I think now , that the year of trial is a wise thing.’
MAN TO WOMAN ‘And this handfasting of yours to my namesake, was it, -
MAN (ASIDE) I hesitated to ask the question as to whether it was a first or a third experiment ... I stammered out, ‘was it entered into when you were both very young and likely to change?’
WOMAN ‘No, we were both rather old; at least I’m going on twenty-one, and he is a year older. But it is my first handfasting if that is what you mean to ask and I fancy it’s like to be the last.’
MAN ‘But are there any that never settle, that go from one to another?’
WOMAN ‘Oh there’s some that go on like that till they pass their youth, and then they settle down with some one, maybe the crookedest stick of the lot, as the saying is. But they’re not much respected.
MAN ‘[And you [of course]do not associate] with these fickle changeable people?’
WOMAN ‘Oh no, not so bad as that. It is not given to everyone to be naturally constant, and a year and a day with some men or women is just as much as any one woman or man can [manage].
SERMON
If you read the last issue of the Light you already know that my "fifteen minutes of fame" came a year after I had delivered three sermons on sex to the UU congregation in Farmington, Michigan. I devoted one sermon to Fornication, One to Homosexuality, and one on Adultery. When the last of these was printed in Pageant Magazine in 1967 the editors gave it the title, "Adultery Need Not Destroy Your Marriage." I did say that, but had I been able to choose the title, it would have been INFIDELITY CAN DESTROY YOUR MARRIAGE. What's the difference between Adultery and Infidelity?
Webster's New 20th Century Dictionary, unabridged, defines adultery as " a violation of the marriage bed, sexual intercourse between a married man and a woman not his wife or a married woman and a man not her husband."
It gives a second definition, "In scripture [adultery is] "all manner of lewdness or unchastity, also idolatry or apostasy." This strange common use of the same word for sexual and spiritual relationships persists in the definition of infidelity.
The same dictionary defines infidelity as:1. Lack of faith, trust or loyalty, or
2. lack of belief in all religions or any one religion, especially Christianity,
3. Unfaithfulness, particularly in a married person; a violation of the marriage covenant by adultery.
4. an unfaithful or disloyal act; treachery deceit.

If you remember nothing else from this sermon, I want you to understand that adultery "having sexual intercourse with someone not one's spouse" is a form of infidelity, and that it is the infidelity, the treachery, the disloyalty, the deceit that destroys a marriage.
Kenneth Boulding wrote:

"It is not hard to turn the other cheek
After an insult, or hot tempered blow,
And easier still it is, if we but know
How deadly are the weapons of the meek:
But treachery! That's evil at its peak
Not to be suffered: easier far to go
The second mile with enemies, than show
Love to deceitful friends - Faugh! how they reek
Of cowardice, and the stale gray stench of fear!
Can I bear this, and bear it to the end?"

It is the betrayal that a partner feels that "breaks" a marriage - and that applies whether we're talking about heterosexual or homosexual unions. But since 95% of all such commitments are heterosexual, I will use that terminology henceforth.
Our culture still focuses on a particular act of infidelity, the "betrayal of the marriage bed" and ignores other forms of infidelity.
Sexual exclusiveness in marriage is desirable - for many many reasons - but I have seen successful so-called open marriages, where adultery occurred by mutual consent, but these are few and far between. I have never seen a successful marriage where infidelity occurred and persisted.
Of course, it all depends on what you mean by "successful" and what you mean by "marriage." Does this sound presidential?
Thirty-four years ago I came to the conclusion that there are three things that are essential for successful marriage - not just long-term marriage - but successful marriage. I incorporated them into my marriage ceremony. I ask every couple I "join in holy matrimony" three questions:

1. Will you live together in love, each seeking the welfare of the other.
2. Will you live together in love, each cherishing the uniqueness of the other.
3. Will you live together in love each giving your marriage priority over every other human relationship.

And when people ask me what is married love - as opposed to "infatuation" I say it is, "seeking the welfare of the other" "cherishing the uniqueness of the other" and "giving your relationship priority over every other human relationship."
The last of the three questions is the one that is the subject of this morning’s sermon, but don't forget the first two components of married love: cherishing and seeking. But what is at issue in most troubled marriages is priority.
For young married couples the threat to priority is often "the other man" or "the other woman". Either lust or "Limerance" - what is usually called "falling in love" - tempts a man or a woman to break faith with his or her spouse and give priority to that other relationship. Often that
"infidelity" is expressed by breaking the vow of "sexual exclusiveness." but even if sexual exclusiveness is observed infidelity can occur. That's why I say to the congregation, at the beginning of weddings I perform:

"They [ the couple that is ] will pledge, each one, to give their marriage priority over every other human relationship, not rejecting the love given them by family and friends, but putting before everything else the unique love which is theirs alone. They ask you to honor that priority and, renouncing the temptation to take sides, to dedicate your selves, from this
day forward, to their marriage. "

Of all the many things I would like to say this morning about marriage it is this point on priorities that I most want you to remember. Whether you were married in a traditional ceremony where you agreed to "forsake all others", or were married in a ceremony you wrote yourself, you probably pledged to give your marriage first priority. It is the failure to honor that pledge that constitutes Infidelity. Adultery is only one way to be unfaithful - in our culture, an often devastating way, in France less so - but it is the giving of priority to one's job, or one's parents, one's lover or sometimes even one's children that is destructive to the marriage.
But let's be radical and talk about adultery.
I believe today, as I did thirty-six years ago that much of the sexual infidelity that occurs in marriage is the result of a failure to provide young people with a realistic sex education and occasions for responsible sexual experimentation.
 I still believe "abstinence only" and the expectation that most men and women will be able to live a long lifetime with their first sexual partner is foolish. But what is the alternative? In 1964, the most popular alternative was the "Playboy philosophy". The first of my three sermons on sex was a protest against the Playboy philosophy, i.e. "if nobody gets hurt and it feels good, do it". What I proposed was what Margaret Mead later called "two stage marriage", and what Judge Ben Lindsay had 40 years earlier called "companionate marriage". But I later discovered that the same proposal had been made 86 years earlier in 1878 by Catherine Helen Spence - a very active member of the Adelaide Unitarian Church – more responsible than any other woman for South Australia being the second state to give the vote to women. In her Novel, Hand fasting she described a utopia in which couples had to have been "handfasted" before they were allowed to marry and to raise children. A couple was "handfasted" when they agreed to live together and to be sexually faithful "for a year and a day". At the end of that period either partner could end the relationship.
But what if they had children, you might ask? There was no reliable contraception available in 1878. What happened if a child were "born out of wedlock." If a child was conceived and either the woman or the man did not wish to be married, that is, married "’til death do us part", to the other, the child was raised by the community. The entire community became "parents" to these children. These children who, in our society would be called "bastards", were not stigmatized or deprived or abandoned. In fact, only these "children of the community" were allowed to become Preachers or Teachers or Government officials. What a unique idea ! What a shocking idea for 1878!
But of course Catherine Helen Spence was writing of a Utopia. Some people said I was writing about a Utopia in 1964 when I suggested something similar. I was not being Utopian. Quite the opposite. The introduction of a reliable and invisible female contraceptive in the early 60's made something like "handfasting" not only
possible but essential!. Why?
Because the introduction of the pill finally broke the link between intercourse and pregnancy for women. It was the single most liberating - and the single most destabilizing - bit of technology developed in the twentieth century. It was liberating because it gave women the same opportunity for "safe sex". And here I don't mean "disease free sex". I mean "sex without significant risk of conception." Sadly, it also made possible for many a "Play Girl" lifestyle - exemplified later in Cosmopolitan magazine to go along with the "Playboy Philosophy" that Hugh Heffner pushed in his magazines and clubs. In 1964, premarital sex and adultery - clandestine or open - were becoming the norm in some circles. Entering the Unitarian Universalist ministry in 1963 I was shocked ! That's one reason I wrote those sermons. Later I discovered that the Sexual Revolution was by no means limited to UU's. Episcopalians, Catholics, Methodists, even Baptists were discovering "the joys of sex". I had always celebrated sexuality. I considered it then and now, the superlative way of expressing love, but I was also aware of the dangers of casual sex before marriage and of the adultery after marriage, like the O'Neils who later published a fine book titled, "Open Marriage", which persuaded many that they could have a good marriage and sex outside of marriage at the same time. Few couples survived the experimentation - but some did, for while they practiced "Adultery" - often enthusiastically - they were faithful to each other. They did not lie. They did not violate trust. But even when sex outside marriage was by mutual consent it put terrible strains on the marriages for - and this is the second most important thing I want you to remember this morning: - sexual intercourse is not like playing doubles in tennis. Sexual intercourse is a way to "know" another person in the most intimate way that's physically possible. When used properly sexual intercourse can be a sacrament.
In fact the Elizabethans used the English word "know" to translate the Biblical Hebrew and Greek words for sexual intercourse as well as for the Greek and Hebrew words designating a first hand knowledge of Deity. One could "know God" and one could also "know" one's wife or husband.
I do not, repeat, not recommend "open marriage", though I still believe that "Adultery Need Not Destroy Your Marriage." I see little point to marriage today without sexual exclusiveness. The risks of violating the priority that a couple should give to their partnership are simply too great. If one needs to experiment with multiple sexual partners, do it by "handfasting" - a deliberately childless limited term partnership - before covenanting with another person in a partnership for parenthood - which is what conventional marriage should be called: "A partnership for parenthood".
When I marry couples who plan to have children soon – and I have done some weddings with the obstetrician standing by – I as k, "Will you provide any children of your union the nurture and succor they will need to achieve independence?" And I counsel couples beforehand that producing a child is signing a contract for at least 18 tears of co0parenting. Hopefully together, but a binding contract even if a couple should separate. Like Catherine Helen Spense, I believe that "partnership for parenthood" should be undertaken only after one has lived for at least "a year and a day" in a "partnership for mutual understanding and growth" Call it what you will: "Handfasting", "Trial Marriage", "companionate marriage", whatever. Before undertaking parenthood - either adoptive or natural - you should know from experience that you and your partner can grow together and withstand the challenges to your partnership during the years it will take to raise children. That is my advice to the unmarried.
What of those who are in a conventional marriage that they find less than Ideal? What do I suggest they do? I say hire a marriage counselor! I've been one and my wife and I used one more than once in our 45 years together.
Isn't it amazing. We all recognize that something as simple as an automobile needs regular maintenance and skilled repair when broken but we assume that something as complex as a marriage can repair itself? One of the great frustrations of being a marriage counselor was having a couple come in for marriage counseling and realizing that at least one of them was actually seeking divorce counseling by trying to negotiate a painless divorce. Sometimes that's the best I could do.
A family is much too precious to break up until every alternative has been tried. I think we can all agree on that. But I say any partnership that has involved a promise of fidelity -even when children are not involved - is too precious to break up without seriously exploring alternatives.
I KNOW the great happiness that can come from a single, successful, life long partnership. I also know that may be impossible for most people. It may be that most people in the twenty first century will need three or more partnerships "customized" for different stages of life. One or more "handfastings" for the limerent prone years of adolescence, one
marriage for the child raising years and then perhaps after the children are grown and responsible for themselves: a marriage that will enable two mature persons to explore the truly spiritual aspects of marriage; a marriage that will last "til death do us part." Blessed are those of us who
have had all three kinds of marriage with only one other person. I certainly feel blessed. How did we do it? To be honest, it had more to do with luck than with wisdom. It had a lot to do with the pressures society put on us to "stick it out" through the hard times - pressures which have largely disappeared in secular society. Today, economic pressures have something to do with it. Young women found it more difficult to leave a less than perfect spouse in our early years. There are many reasons we've "made it" so don't expect magic formulae from those who have "successful" marriages - however you define the term.
Nevertheless, let me make some suggestions for your consideration if you are
thinking of ending your marriage.
For it is never too late to have a good marriage - and it may well be with the person
to whom you're already married.
Let me offer several suggestions that every couple should consider before they consider divorce and even before they go to a marriage counselor.
1. Don't confuse "limerance" - "romantic love" with the kind of mutual concern, respect, sharing of joy and tenderness, mutual support and enjoying of common memories that undergird successful marriages. The absence of limerance for your spouse or the presence of limerance for another is not sufficient reason to end a marriage. In fact it's one of the worst reasons - though one of the most common - reasons. It's possible to become addicted to the excitement of limerance and to seek it our at all costs when it fades. Don't do it! See a marriage counselor.
2. Do not assume that it is the proposition "we should stay together" that needs proving. "We should stay together" is the default mode, to use computer jargon. It is the proposition "we should split" that requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. See a marriage counselor.
3. Consider the possibility that you may not ever be capable of an ideal marriage with any partner. Remember, "wherever you go, there you are." See a marriage counselor. Finally,
4. Write a new marriage contract and seal it with a remarriage ceremony. Covenant to "live together in love, each seeking the welfare of the other" "to live together in love, each cherishing the uniqueness of the other" and "to live together in love, each giving your marriage priority over every other human relationship."

Please join me in some moments of silent meditation.