Sunday, March 15, 2015

Untangling Early Christian Attitudes Part 7

We come to the final installment of Untangling Early Christian Attitudes. The entire paper is now online. I really do welcome comments and questions. And, don't just assume that my opinions are gospel. Read for yourself and come to your own conclusions. If adding the bibliography would be helpful, I'd be happy to oblige. I've gotten some interesting feedback from a couple of seminary professors that I hope to form into a coherent blog post for later this week.  For now, however, I present the last of Untangling Early Christian Attitudes.
Now, it only remains to look at the changes within the early Christian church.  Christian ascetic teachings took root in the in the soil prepared for it by the stoic philosophers which was increasing in popularity among the Romans.[1]  Justin understood Christ’s comments about eunuchs to be an indication that men who could not remain chaste should castrate themselves,[2] which is asceticism taken to an extreme.  Marcion, 2nd century CE, was so acetic that he “prohibited marriage for all his followers.”  Cassianus and ascetics like him likely got their ideas on celibacy from the Gospel According to the Egyptians.  Bullough further points out that “the Syrian Christian Church of the third Century were unanimous in their testimony that the fundamental conception around which the Christian belief centered was the doctrine that Christian life was ‘unthinkable outside the bounds of virginity,’” quoting from Voobus.[3]  However, in the Didascalia Apostolorum, a work produced by the Syrian Christian Church in the third Century, the author indicates that Christian sons “should be married off as soon as possible to avoid the temptation of [fornication].”[4]  So, there seems to be contradictions as to what people thought even here.
Interestingly, many Christian writers felt that all sex, including in marriage was wrong.  Eustathius of Sebastia from the 4th Century CE, believed that married people could not receive salvation.  And, sexual abstinence became a requirement for church membership, but this requirement was removed by the late 4th to early 5th centuries.[5]  In monasticism, asceticism focused on same gender romance with St. Basil, 4th century advising the monks to avoid close relationships with others of their own age.  St Augustine recommended similar restrictions for nuns.[6]
Bullough points out that Christianity in the early years was not unified and that one should not take “Paul’s references to sex as a systematic or comprehensive treatment of sexual matters.”[7]  The followers of the Gnostic Prodicus felt that since the law had been abolished by Christ, they were free to enjoy adultery, nudity and “other sexual activites.”[8]  Clement also spoke about women who “play the man against nature, both being married and marrying women.”[9]  Augustine, who lived from 354 to 430CE, had a very close relationship with his mother, withdrew from women and had a close relationship with an unnamed male companion who would remain nameless, though this relationship may not have been sexual.[10] 
By the end of the second or beginning of the third century CE, the Chruch had begun to wipe out Gnosticism; however, it acquired an ascetic flavor in the process.  “Greggory of Nyssa, in the fourth century dismissed marriage as a sad tragedy.”[11] It seems to me that in an effort to gain converts, sometime after the second Century, theologians began using Greek Philosophy to explain the existence God.  Firmicus Maternus some time in the fourth century clearly felt that the galli were to be hated.  He claimed that their Goddess filled them with an “unholy spirit” which allowed them to predict the future, [12] which again sounds an awful lot like Paul in Romans 1. 
St John Chrysostom in the 4th Century CE, said regarding Romans 1, “No one can claim, [Paul] points out, that she came to this because she was precluded from lawful intercourse or that she was unable to satisfy her desire she fell into this monstrous depravity.  Only those possessing something can change it…”  He further elaborates on the men, “Likewise [Paul] casts aside with these words every excuse, charging that they not only had [legitimate] enjoyment and abandoned it, going after a different one, but that spurning the natural they pursued the unnatural.” So, Chrysostom seems to think that Paul is speaking of those who were already known to be heterosexual.  Boswell concludes from this that Paul only discussed “homosexual acts committed by heterosexual persons.”[13]
In conclusion, it seems obvious that Romans and early Christians would have known of age appropriate same-gender attraction as well as transgenders or eunuchs.  It also seems apparent that there were a plethora of words available for the Biblical authors to use to describe transgender people or homoromantic people, but they did not use any of these words.  This indicates to me that the Biblical writers likely had no concern about it.  It is also apparent that as asceticism increased in popularity among the pagans, it also increased among early Christians.  This, more than any apparent hatred of homosexuals by Christ or the disciples, seems to have lead to the eventual interpretations of Scripture in anti-homosexual ways.  Pagan asceticism also likely influenced ancient Judaism’s shift in attitudes.



[1] Cantarella pg 188, Greenburg, Brystryn pg523, Bullough pg 159
[2] Cantarella pg 207
[3] Bullough pg 184-86
[4] Methuen pg 27
[5] Greenburg, Brystryn pg 525
[6] Bullough pg 195
[7] Bullough pg 177
[8] Bullough pg 187
[9] Smith pg 240
[10] Murphy pg 64
[11] Bullough 188
[12] Roscoe pg 196
[13] Boswel pg 109

No comments:

Post a Comment