Noyes and Communitarian Marriage

Summary

Dr. Owen Anderson explores the radical ideas of the Oneida Community, focusing on John Humphrey Noyes' concept of 'Bible communism' and complex marriage. Noyes challenged traditional marriage models, proposing a democratic, flexible approach where individuals freely choose and change partners. He argued that the Bible supports such an approach, particularly in relation to divorce, while rejecting monogamy and polygamy as flawed systems of ownership. Noyes also introduced eugenic principles, advocating for 'scientific propagation' to improve human traits. The lecture critically examines how these ideas intersect with theology, morality, and emerging scientific thought of the time.

Takeaways

• 😀 Dr. Anderson begins by discussing how views on self, sex, and marriage reflect underlying theological beliefs or the absence of them, emphasizing that our perspectives on these topics reveal our understanding of human nature and purpose.
• 😀 The Oneida Community, led by John Humphrey Noyes, implemented 'complex marriage,' a practice that rejected both monogamy and polygamy, aiming to achieve moral perfection through a communal approach to marriage.
• 😀 Noyes argued that traditional marriage models, including both monogamy and polygamy, wrongly viewed women as property, whereas complex marriage allowed individuals to freely choose partners and relationships.
• 😀 The lecture contrasts Noyes' ideas with the Shakers, who advocated for celibacy, and the 1960s 'free love' movement, critiquing the notion that sexual freedom is inherently noble or liberating.
• 😀 Dr. Anderson highlights Noyes' argument that the New Testament's teachings on divorce focus on preserving lifelong commitment rather than enabling easy separation, using the analogy of bankruptcy laws to explain marriage obligations.
• 😀 Noyes uses the idea of 'scientific propagation' to justify his complex marriage model, drawing on the practices of animal breeding and phrenology to suggest that humans could be selectively bred for desirable traits, foreshadowing eugenics.
• 😀 Noyes' approach to marriage, which he argued was rooted in biblical teachings, diverges from traditional monogamy by advocating for the freedom of individuals within a community to form and dissolve relationships.
• 😀 Dr. Anderson critiques Noyes’ ideas by asserting that marriage, according to the Genesis creation narrative, is a union between one man and one woman, symbolizing spiritual unity, which Noyes' complex marriage undermines.
• 😀 The lecture underscores the importance of understanding human nature and marriage in theological terms, challenging secular views that redefine these concepts based on human choice rather than divine design.
• 😀 Dr. Anderson draws parallels between Noyes’ ideas and contemporary debates, suggesting that the arguments for 'scientific propagation' and sexual freedom reflect broader cultural tensions around morality, religion, and science.

Q & A

What is the concept of 'complex marriage' introduced by the Oneida Community?

The concept of 'complex marriage' introduced by the Oneida Community is a system where individuals within a marriage are not bound to one person but can decide to form relationships with others. It rejects both monogamy and polygamy, arguing that both systems treat women as property. In complex marriage, all members of the community are essentially free to engage in relationships with others, creating a more democratic and flexible marriage structure.

How does Dr. Owen Anderson connect theology with views on sex and marriage?

Dr. Anderson explains that one's views on sex, marriage, and self are deeply reflective of their underlying theology. For instance, if someone believes that humans have no divine purpose, their views on sex may be reduced to mere pleasure or procreation. In contrast, a theological belief in a Creator provides a foundation for understanding marriage as a purposeful, sacred union that goes beyond personal desires.

What are the similarities and differences between the Oneida Community and the Shakers?

Both the Oneida Community and the Shakers were religious groups that sought to reform societal norms, particularly regarding marriage and sexual practices. The key difference is that the Shakers practiced celibacy, seeing sex as sinful and aiming for moral purity through abstinence. The Oneida Community, on the other hand, believed in complex marriage as a way to perfect society, advocating for sexual freedom within a communal framework, while still opposing traditional marriage structures like monogamy and polygamy.

Why does John Humphrey Noyes argue against both monogamy and polygamy?

Noyes argues that both monogamy and polygamy are flawed because they treat women as property. In monogamy, the wife is owned by the husband, and in polygamy, the same issue arises with one man having multiple wives. Noyes believes that these systems fail to achieve true equality and freedom, which is why he proposes complex marriage as a more equitable alternative.

What is the theological basis that Noyes uses to defend complex marriage?

Noyes defends complex marriage using arguments from the New Testament, particularly teachings on divorce. He argues that Christ and Paul opposed divorce as a solution to marital problems, and that the proper solution is not to create rigid marital structures (like monogamy or polygamy) but to allow individuals the freedom to form relationships in a democratic, non-hierarchical manner.

How does Noyes's concept of scientific propagation relate to eugenics?

Noyes’s concept of scientific propagation involves the idea that marriage and reproduction should be managed in a way that promotes the best traits in the human race, similar to how animals are selectively bred for desirable qualities. This philosophy aligns with early eugenics movements, which sought to improve the genetic quality of the human population through controlled breeding. While Noyes presents this as a way to perfect humanity, it raises ethical concerns, particularly about selective reproduction and the treatment of individuals deemed 'undesirable'.

What ethical concerns does Dr. Anderson raise about Noyes's approach to reproduction?

Dr. Anderson raises significant ethical concerns about Noyes’s approach to reproduction, particularly regarding the application of scientific reasoning to human breeding. He highlights that this philosophy can lead to the dehumanization of individuals, categorizing them as either 'desirable' or 'undesirable' based on arbitrary traits. Anderson critiques the idea of using science as a means of controlling human reproduction, noting that such practices can lead to harmful ideologies like eugenics and discrimination.

What is the significance of Dr. Anderson’s critique of the idea of 'freedom' in relation to sexual liberation?

Dr. Anderson critiques the idea of sexual freedom promoted by both the Oneida Community and the 1960s sexual revolution, suggesting that it reflects a shallow understanding of freedom. He argues that true freedom should be associated with intellectual and moral growth—like reading great literature—rather than the pursuit of sexual pleasure. This critique challenges the cultural narrative that equates freedom with unrestricted sexual activity, instead advocating for a more holistic view of human flourishing.

How does Dr. Anderson interpret the Biblical argument against polygamy and divorce?

Dr. Anderson interprets the Biblical argument against polygamy and divorce as emphasizing the sanctity and unity of marriage. He points to Genesis 1-2, where the two become one, as a foundational principle for understanding marriage. The idea is that marriage involves a unique unity between two people, which cannot be easily expanded to include multiple partners. Therefore, both polygamy and divorce are seen as contrary to the natural order established by God.

What does Dr. Anderson mean when he discusses the 'crack in the foundation' of American religious thought?

Dr. Anderson uses the metaphor of a 'crack in the foundation' to suggest that early American religious ideas set the stage for later theological and social problems. He argues that the unresolved issues within the foundations of American religious thought continue to manifest in new ways, such as in the debates over marriage, sexuality, and human nature. This reflects a long-standing tension in American religiosity, where the consequences of early theological positions continue to influence contemporary issues.