There is no point philosophizing about it; you are either religious or you are not. Well, there is a middle way: a little bit of this, a little bit of that. Even so, religion often works like the opium of politics: it intoxicates just as it indoctrinates. When some freethinkers declare that they are not religious, they usually do not have the compunction to acknowledge the religious nature of that declaration. They may not belong to any religious association or live for a deity, but they believe in religion or at least believe in people’s belief in religion. In a sense, most of us believe in a larger design somewhere.
When we say it doesn’t matter where and how two people find love, all that we mean to say is that the love they share is the most important thing. Things like religion, height, race, family background and level of education, should be treated like an adulterer’s interpretation of the Christian commandment on forgiveness: you forgive only when you can do a quick arithmetic of the sum of seventy seven times seven. When you couldn’t do it quickly, the wrongdoer pays for your lack of numerate skills-he caused it.
It is not altogether unnecessary to consider religion when deciding on marriage. One believes the Sabbath falls on Saturday, the other thinks Sunday does him just fine. He loves prako nkrakra (pork light soup) with a passion. On her part, she would cut her tongue and roast it for dinner if pork was the only meat on earth. He believes and speaks in tongues; she wouldn’t speak it, but she believes in it. He would be home every Saturday, and he would wish she was available for a cuddle in the sofa to peruse the hair on his chest with her manicured fingers. But she has to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy, so, she is never at home on Saturdays. She would need him on Sundays to unwind in a massage-inducing rich imperial lather, while a cool romantic song prepares their souls for a candle-lit dinner. But he would have to be in church on Sunday and lead the choir to sing Oh Happy Day as usual. They are in love, but they have different priorities. For, she is an Adventist and he a born-again Charismatic.
Do these sound like good reasons for any two love-crazy people to end their romance? Well, I would have expected that when two individuals who believe in the same religion (Christianity) embark on any venture, there would be very little reason to think of religious differences. But, this is where religion really becomes the Lord and Master of our being; it defines the way we think and why we think what we think.
Recently, a gentleman of Polish descent shocked everybody when he surged into a London restaurant, jumped on a table and cut off his genital organ. Onlookers watched in disbelief as tons of blood oozed from his severed manhood while he continued cursing and ranting, his Koo-the-Boy still hanging, like the trousers of a controversial village catechist. His problem was that all the women he has approached have rejected his advances, so he was cutting the thing off if nobody wants it.
What could drive a descent right-thinking man to this extremity? He had explained that women with whom he shares the same faith have rejected him for strangers. He had felt so let down by his religion. Perhaps, his case is less serious than the Pakistani Muslim who bludgeoned his sister to death when she decided to marry an Afghan Muslim, instead of her family’s choice of a Pakistani. They had deemed the girls action an insult to their culture and their religion, needless to say.
The argument for ‘cross religious marriage’ is as sensible as the case against it. Sometimes, the prospect of two people from different religions successfully settling together is like a bird marring a fish. At least, that is how a Muslim colleague puts it. At what point does a bird become so much of a fish that it would not be able to perch on a tree? Apart from the drop that it would drink, would a bird ever need water for anything? The two belong to different families, but they are all animal enough for our purposes. So, if Mr. Bird marries sister Fish, where will they have their honeymoon? Their best bet will be to have the frog to officiate, since it is amphibious and can survive on land and in water. After that, how will they live the happily ever life together?
This is the dilemma of an Adventist lady who is not sure whether to take the deep plunge in marrying a tongue-speaking Holy Spirit-filled Assemblies of God evangelist. She admits that she has seen successful marriages between Adventists and non Adventists, but she fears she would have to make concessions that may compromise her faith. She is convinced the gentleman is her idea of Mr. Right, but she is so steeped in the Adventist faith that she fears making a bond with a non Adventist is a betrayal of her faith.
Such an arrangement should be very easy where there is love, and it should be difficult where there is not much love. Of course, this is a very simplistic way of looking at differences that are embedded in religion. One way is to suggest that they play the one- one-two game, where the lady practices her faith and the man gets on with his. In the end, the two of them will manage to make time for each other when the need be. The other way is the zero-one-one equation, where the two would agree to make some concessions for the sake of their union, but would still place religion first when there is a conflict of interest. The third is the two-zero-zero formula. Here the two decide that they are human first and religion second, so their devotion is to their union and not religion. This way, religion loses when there is any social activity that requires the presence of the two. In the two-two-one scenario, the two believe they are one, and they move together. So, the lady decides to burry her Adventist faith in her hairdo and follows the evangelist to his Assemblies of God church. There is also the rare zero-zero-zero case, where the two would abandon their faith altogether to make time for effective romance.
The one-one-two game appears a practical option. Nobody loses anything and they can satisfy each other. In a relationship where no party is prepared to lose anything, there is always a problem. Just how well does it pan out if the husband of a properly married woman is always missing in church? Wouldn’t it be very nice if her husband opened the door to the car for her after they have worshiped together? If they share one car between them, it would mean that the man would have to wait at home until the Mrs comes back from church. He may have to cancel appointments or reschedule important meetings on Saturdays. She would not be around to see to guests when his friends visit on Saturdays. He would not feel comfortable leaving an empty home on Saturdays to party with friends. What about funerals on Saturdays? Does he go alone or she forgoes church. What is the opportunity cost here? Not very smooth, is it?
In the second option where the two agree to make concessions, there would still be problems. It is excusable for her to disappoint her husband’s guests in favour of her religious commitments, but she shouldn’t be able to disappoint the children if the PTA meeting falls on Saturday. He would need her for that important Board of Directors dinner dance but she would have to sort out a few important things with the committee that is planning for the convention. At a point, it would be practicable to check who is making what concessions. Marriage is never-ending, concessions mustn’t be. If religion always carries the day whenever there is a conflict of interest, there would be problems.
The two-zero-zero deal sounds romantic. When they decide to make religion a bitch, it means they don’t care very much what happens to their faith. That means they would be pleasing their souls instead of their religion. Their religious commitment is what might have brought them together. Her God-fearing nature had appealed to him and her, his devotion to the things of the spirit. Spiritually, their marriage ceases to exist when they fall out with the spirit that joined them together. Pleasing the carnal side is always dangerous for the development of the spirit within. It challenges our ethics and gives us reason to redefine morality to suit our understanding.
We are about having a very good arrangement when the Adventist lady decides to throw away all the religious upbringing she has had, and curses her father by signing on as the newest convert to the Assemblies of God church. This is the two-two-zero programme. The lady demonstrates absolute commitment to the husband by subsuming her faith under her husband’s. His body is hers, so is his religion. In some cases, some men would out of love deicide to attend the churches of their wives.’ It is by no means condescending for a man to sacrifice his faith for his dear wife. I have seen men who have taken the surname of their wives after marriage. It only shows how well they understand the oneness of their body. It is beautiful and very romantic.
You would realize that I have been using the words faith and religion carelessly, as if to suggest that an Adventist is significantly different from other Christians. There are subtle, and in some cases important doctrinal differences, but they all Bible-believing unions: they share some important aspects of the same faith and follow some biblically recommended practices. That is, they are not unusual Christians. So, why should it be difficult for two people who are under the instruction of the Bible to live together as man and wife?
What happens to the children from a union where the parents subscribe to different faiths? Are they Adventists or they are Catholics? Who decides their religious fate if the couple go by the one-one-two formula? Would it be easier if they were in the same faith?
btawiah@hotmail.com, Freelance, London.
