Ship of Fools: Homosexuality vs Slavery: A comparison of biblical exegesis

Thread: Homosexuality vs Slavery: A comparison of biblical exegesis Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030750

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :

Most Christians take it for granted today that slavery is incompatible with Christianity.

However, Christians have not always regarded the two as incompatible, and I think it is extremely insightful to look at how Christians have historically interpreted the bible with regard to slavery and compare that to the modern arguments over homosexuality.

The recent movie 12 Years a Slave, depicts in a reasonably historically accurate way that a large proportion of slave owners in America were bible-believing Christians. Historically the African slave trade originated during the 15th and 16th centuries, a time when Europe was strongly and officially Christian. The slave trade endured through the Reformation without being particularly vehemently condemned by any significant number of the Reformers. The slave trade subsequently hugely boomed during the colonization of the Americas, with massive numbers of slaves being exploited by mainly protestant Christians in North America and by mainly catholic Christians in South America.

During the efforts to abolish slavery, a substantial number of conservative Christians vehemently defended the practice of slavery, citing extensive biblical texts that mentioned and condoned the practice. Eventually the Southern Baptists split off due to their insistence on maintaining a pro-slavery position, standing against the anti-slavery social change that was sweeping the world.

And it is not difficult to see why they thought the bible endorsed slavery. Slavery is mentioned repeatedly throughout the bible in ways that both implicitly and explicitly condone it or command it to take place. Laws regarding slaves are given in the Old Testament, and there are repeated statements and passages that imply the Israelites are entirely justified in making slaves of (or killing) the 'evil' people groups that surround them, such as Hittites, Canaanites, Moabites, Midianites etc. So the general notion of race-based slavery has a reasonably solid foundation in the bible. And while the New Testament says some things that might modify how slavery is practised, along the lines of "Masters, be kind to your slaves", there is nothing that explicitly endorses political action to remove slavery as a political institution. In a straightforward reading of the bible, slavery is clearly commanded, condoned, and endorsed, and that never changes.

Yet today most Christians simply take it for granted that no one who is a Christian would even consider slavery to be acceptable. My parents, upon watching 12 Years a Slave last month, were shocked and horrified at the movie's portrayal of the slave owners as bible-believing Christians, and despite several conversations I've had with my parents on the subject since then, they still seem simply unable to believe and accept that the historical slave owners were really true Christians.

Modern Christians, insofar as they ever think about the Christian position on slavery, simply point to the overall message of the bible as being one of love, and to the ministry of Jesus as focused on helping the oppressed. The idea is that the bible's basic and fundamental point is that we love God and our fellow man, and it simply follows from that that no true Christian could support or endorse slavery. I totally agree.

It is interesting however, from a exegetical/hermeneutical point of view that to get an anti-slavery reading from the bible you need to go straight to the basic and central message of the bible, ie the spirit of what it says overall, and ignore all the passages that specifically mention the specific subject of slavery. ie you're using an extremely liberal hermeneutic that totally ignores the specifics and focuses solely on the overall message of the bible (which is fine IMO, because I think that's the right type of hermeneutic to be using). But if you were to use a reading of the bible that was at all literalistic or conservative then you'd arrive at a pro-slavery position.

Now all of that is a kind of historically interesting tangent, but it becomes highly relevant when we apply it to the issues of homosexuality.

So when I come to interpret the bible with regard to homosexuality, my approach is to observe that the central message of the bible is love, and that Jesus' ministry was about reaching out to the oppressed. The idea is that the bible's basic and fundamental point is that we love God and our fellow man, and it simply follows from that that no true Christian could support or endorse anti-homosexual positions.

Yet instead, so many Christians are obsessed with literal and conservative readings of specific biblical texts that deal specifically with homosexuality while they entirely ignore the overall thrust of the bible. If they tried the same approach to exegesis on the issue of slavery they would land themselves instantly in a pro-slavery position.

I thus find it extremely ironic that my parents regard with shock/horror the idea that the slave owners of the 19th century dared think of themselves as Christians while endorsing slavery...
Whereas I regard with shock/horror the idea that people in the 20th/21st century dare think of themselves as Christians while being against homosexuality...

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

A similar argument is made by Jack Rogers in Jesus, the Bible, and Homosexuality, where he not only looks at supposed Biblical support for slavery he draws similar arguments relating to the status of women (writing from an American Presbyterian perspective where the debate over ordination of women was conducted in the 1950s and 60s and the vast majority of life-long Presbyterians haven't known a time when women could not be ordained to all levels of ministry - the applicability of all of his arguments in that respect may differ for those in denominations where ordination of women to all levels of ministry is a more recent event, or one yet to be achieved).

His main point was that we easily conduct Biblical interpretation in a philosophical framework of "common sense". There are culturally accepted norms that dictate what is "obviously true", and it is very difficult to look outside those norms to question whether the "obvious" is obvious, let alone true. In relation to slavery, there were factors like it was obvious that western Europeans were "civilised" ans "superior" and Africans, Native Americans and others were "barbarians" and "inferior". Throughout western Europe there was a very long history of feudalism (whether formally, or informal as the Lords and Knights appointed by the King were replaced by lordship through acquired wealth), with effective serfdom part of that system ... extending that to slavery was a small step.

When Christians come to the Bible they read it through the eyes of their society, and very often take their reading back to support the values of their society. People came to the Bible with a view that they were culturally and intellectually superior, that other races were deficient and there to serve the superior Europeans ... and found there support for both their views of superiority and treatment of the "inferior". We look back, we know they were deeply mistaken ... and yet we still read the Bible through the eyes of what we (possibly unconsciously) view as "obviously true".

Until relatively recently homosexuality was one of those things seen as "obviously wrong". Once we get past the blinkers thinking of something as "obviously true" and examine Scripture and the world in the light of a more open mind then things can look very different. Of course, we may still conclude that what was "obviously true" is true, it's just not based on it being "well, d'uh everyone knows that, it's obvious" but being worked out from first principles.

The benefit of becoming increasingly more multi-cultural is that many of the things that in a narrowly defined cultural environment were "obviously true" becomes a lot less obvious as we see first hand other cultures which don't see those things as obvious.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

The former Australian Prime Minister drew the comparison.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-02/rudd-launches-passionate-gay-marriage-defence/4930542

There was considerable uproar in conservative Christian circles. Any number of people bent over backwards to say why he was wrong.

Other more neutral commentators generally said he was right.

[ 03. May 2014, 06:46: Message edited by: orfeo ]

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
.....
I thus find it extremely ironic that my parents regard with shock/horror the idea that the slave owners of the 19th century dared think of themselves as Christians while endorsing slavery...
Whereas I regard with shock/horror the idea that people in the 20th/21st century dare think of themselves as Christians while being against homosexuality...

You're just part of a transition. The next generation of American Christians will think that Christians were for Homosexual rights and point to the brace Unitarian ministers who helped lead the fight to fix the injustices. And they will surprised when you point out that historically most Churches provided most of the justification for the opposition to Homosexual rights.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

The book Slavery, Sabbath, War and Women covers similar ground. It's a long time since I read it, and it was apparently followed by one on homosexuality.

[ 03. May 2014, 07:12: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

When urged to look for the 'central message' of scripture rather than focussing on individual texts, the conservatives tend to say that marriage is the key principle of creation - then they can continue in their homophobia.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Then, on what basis would you deny the sacrament of marriage to a couple who love one another, and will commit themselves to life long faithfulness?

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Then, on what basis would you deny the sacrament of marriage to a couple who love one another, and will commit themselves to life long faithfulness?

Me? No, I wouldn't. But the folk who use the Bible point to its heterosexual nature, as they define it. Then they look back into the Bible to justify their view.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
It is interesting however, from a exegetical/hermeneutical point of view that to get an anti-slavery reading from the bible you need to go straight to the basic and central message of the bible, ie the spirit of what it says overall, and ignore all the passages that specifically mention the specific subject of slavery. ie you're using an extremely liberal hermeneutic that totally ignores the specifics and focuses solely on the overall message of the bible (which is fine IMO, because I think that's the right type of hermeneutic to be using). But if you were to use a reading of the bible that was at all literalistic or conservative then you'd arrive at a pro-slavery position.

Interesting, but not unexpected since strict Biblical literalism was invented largely to support the institution of slavery.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Although there are differences between serfdom and slavery, serfdom was not abolished in Russia until 1861, and from memory rather later than that in many of the dependant states such as Georgia. Slavery was not finally abolished in what is now the USA until the end of 1865, almost a year after after the Civil War ceased. It's strange that your parents are unable to recall such relatively recent events including one so significant in US history. And despite the linking of the Democrat Party to Rum, Rome and Rebellion" most of the slave owners would have been Protestants of what we would now call a fairly fundamentalist kind - the ancestors of teh Southern Baptists and so forth.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
Slavery was not finally abolished in what is now the USA until the end of 1865, almost a year after after the Civil War ceased.

Not even then, depending on how you define "slavery".

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
It's strange that your parents are unable to recall such relatively recent events including one so significant in US history.

I'm not sure I'd call events a century and a half distant "relatively recent", especially when discussed in terms of living memory.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Aren't there no small number of Christian theologians today that argue that regardless of the Bible's endorsement or non-endorsement of the overall institution of slavery, the specific passages regarding it, especially those in the New Testament (since Christians disagree on the applicability of divine commandments in the Old Testament to Christian morality), seem to indicate that for specific individual slaves living in the time of the composition of the New Testament, it was immoral to rebel against their masters given the historical and cultural context. These same scholars would also argue that the situation in 19th century American slavery was completely different and that the New Testament passages regarding slavery do not apply.

I don't agree with this, but hasn't anyone else heard this line of reasoning?

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I've certainly heard similar things to explain away the passages about women teaching.

Posted by Bostonman (# 17108) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Aren't there no small number of Christian theologians today that argue that regardless of the Bible's endorsement or non-endorsement of the overall institution of slavery, the specific passages regarding it, especially those in the New Testament (since Christians disagree on the applicability of divine commandments in the Old Testament to Christian morality), seem to indicate that for specific individual slaves living in the time of the composition of the New Testament, it was immoral to rebel against their masters given the historical and cultural context. These same scholars would also argue that the situation in 19th century American slavery was completely different and that the New Testament passages regarding slavery do not apply.

I don't agree with this, but hasn't anyone else heard this line of reasoning?

I've made a parallel argument in a different case: that the types of male-male sex Paul is discussing are in an extremely different context of relationship than those we're discussing today: oppressive older-younger or master-slave relationships in a culture of misogyny and sexism rather than loving, committed gay relationships.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

I don't believe monogamous gay relationships are sinful, but do believe that the Bible was generally negative toward homosexuality. All non-procreative sex was considered sinful, with homosexuality merely being a subset.

Until the Middle Ages it was widely believed that male semen contained everything needed to conceive a child (The woman merely being an incubator.) and it was believed that men had a finite supply of it (as women actually do with eggs), so it shouldn't be wasted. The ancient Hebrews regarded themselves as a small tribe periodically conquered by bigger neighbours and saw having as many children as possible a way of evening the odds. Beyond that, the political and economic system were such that having as many kids as possible helped provide protection against hostile neighbours, welfare for the infirm and social security for the elderly. From a purely economic standpoint kids were a net benefit for ancient people because they could be put to work at a very young age.

Things are quite different now. There are over 7 billion people on the planet who are arguably causing the environment to deteriorate - we don't need to multiply further. We have outsourced welfare, social security and protection to the state. With certain exceptions, it's illegal for children to work for income - and most jobs in developed countries require technical skills anyway. We have a better understanding of human anatomy and know that male seed isn't something that can really be wasted. In the western context a gay or lesbian identity is fairly fixed - most can't become heterosexual. None of this means we're "better" than ancient people, just that some transposition is needed.

So while I think there is a lot of wiggle room with the 7 "clobber" passages, it wouldn't surprise me if Paul, etc. would have regarded homosexuality as a bad thing.

However, even the most hardcore fundamentalist acknowledges that the Bible contains time- and culture-specific commands, and timeless commands to be observed by all. I believe that homosexuality falls into the former category. Where rape, murder, paedophilia, adultery and all the nasties anti-gays equate homosexuality with actually do objective physical and/or psychological harm, there is no evidence that monogamous gay relationships cause similar trauma. So I don't believe there is any reason a prohibition was meant to be timeless.

[ 06. May 2014, 00:35: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Honest question: If a first-century Christian disciple experienced attraction predominantly to the same sex (but didn't have modern words to describe it), would it have been a sin to act on it?

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

Hard question to answer. I think sex outside of an intended lifelong committed relationship is a sin. It doesn't matter what the gender is. At the same time open monogamous gay relationships don't seem possible in a first century context. It's a terrible catch 22.

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
At the same time open monogamous gay relationships don't seem possible in a first century context.

It's clear from historical data that these existed in the Roman world. The Emperor Nero, for example, publicly married a man, and various sources speak of other men doing so also. All major Roman poets include same-sex acts among their list of possible types of sexual activity, and various surviving art depicts these. So we can say that same-sex activity was known and accepted in the Roman (and Greek) world. Monogamous gay relationships were clearly possible (and occurring) during the Greek and Roman periods (700BC through to 200AD).

I am, however, under the belief that we just don't have much data on the geographical region of Judea in this period with regard to same-sex relationships. It is tempting to assume that Judaism had anti-same-sex teachings... but the extent to which those teachings were strongly taught or strongly followed during the first century (and to what extent they were ignored due to the conflict with Roman/Greek social acceptance of homosexuality) is extremely unclear.

Posted by John Holding (# 158) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
At the same time open monogamous gay relationships don't seem possible in a first century context.
It's clear from historical data that these existed in the Roman world. The Emperor Nero, for example, publicly married a man, and various sources speak of other men doing so also. All major Roman poets include same-sex acts among their list of possible types of sexual activity, and various surviving art depicts these. So we can say that same-sex activity was known and accepted in the Roman (and Greek) world.

No we can't. Nero's "marriage" to Sporus was generally condemned and cited as evidence of a dissolute life. And as Nero was married to a woman at the time, it was certainly not a valid marriage in Roman terms.

Even inside the "marriage" in question, Sporus (who was, I think, a eunuch) was dressed as a woman, and treated as such -- this was a parody of real marriage, not an attempt to legalize a recognized same-sex relationship. And he was not introduced around as Nero's wife, companion, husband or whatever. I am happy to be corrected, but I believe the "marriage" dropped rapidly out of view.

John

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

The only evidence which we have is along the lines described by John Holding - long term same-sex relationships were generally decried. And IIRC, an emperor was deposed and assassinated in the 3rd century AD for dissolute behaviour, which was cited as including importuning members of the Imperial Guard, and cross-dressing.

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
The only evidence which we have is along the lines described by John Holding

There is loooots of surviving evidence from the Greco-Roman period regarding same sex activity. There are 500 pages worth of surviving primary literary passages and documents as well as heaps of graffiti and artworks. For a thorough scholarly analysis on the evidence regarding the Roman period I recommend Roman Homosexuality.

Brief summary with regard to the Roman period:
1. Same sex activity was well-known.
2. Various social customs and conventions surrounded sexual activity (for both opposite-sex and same-sex acts). There were ways of doing it right / the right people to do it with and ways of doing it wrong / the wrong people to do it with.
3. In and of themselves, same sex acts were socially acceptable (so long as they were done right with the right people), in exactly the same way as opposite sex acts were.
4. Hard numbers are hard to come by, but the literature gives the overall impression that the majority of the Roman aristocracy probably engaged in a same-sex act at some point in their lives. No social stigma attached to this.
5. Nothing prevented a Roman man who wished to do so from living with another man and openly having a life-long monogamous relationship with him. Nothing forced them to marry a woman if they didn't want to, and there is no evidence of social stigma attaching to this.
6. No law (until ~380AD) prevented the gay couple having a wedding ceremony if they wished to do so, and a small number of sources indicate that some did this. However, unlike gay sex, to which no condemnation attached, same-sex wedding ceremonies were a source of public ridicule. It is implied by the few sources that deal with gay weddings that the source of the ridicule was one of the men dressing up as a woman during the ceremony. Roman society took offence to men acting the part of a woman, but not to the gay sex itself. (There is no mention of whether gay wedding ceremonies occurred in which one of the men did not dress up as a woman, and so we have no evidence about how the public regarded those ceremonies... the phrasing of the law in ~380AD looks as if the intention is to ban cross-dressing during ceremonies rather than gay marriage ceremonies per se... but that's getting somewhat speculative)

So to repeat again: The surviving evidence, of which there is lots, strongly indicates that "open monogamous gay relationships" as ToujoursDan phrased it were possible and occurring in a first century Roman context. I don't disagree with any of the specific facts John Holding mentioned with regard to Nero's own marriage, but they aren't overly relevant - a lot of people had a lot of issues with Nero but their issues weren't about the gay sex.

[ 07. May 2014, 06:44: Message edited by: Starlight ]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

It's entirely reasonable IMO to say that "marriage" as we would define it and "marriage" in the Greek/Roman world were quiet different anyway, regardless of whether they were same sex or not.

I would suggest that a modern marriage between two equals would be unheard of in the ancient world. It would be almost always accepted that the woman would be the inferior part of the relationship, which would be an unusual arrangement today. Accounts of gay marriages where one man dresses as a woman would suggest that in a lot of cases the model of one man being superior to the other were common - whether there were examples of both men being equal in the relationship is something I don't know.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

I made no comment about same-sex activity. It was common and accepted within certain limitations. My comment was the lack of evidence about same-sex marriage - rather different.

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

quote:
Originally posted by John Holding:

quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
At the same time open monogamous gay relationships don't seem possible in a first century context.
It's clear from historical data that these existed in the Roman world. The Emperor Nero, for example, publicly married a man, and various sources speak of other men doing so also. All major Roman poets include same-sex acts among their list of possible types of sexual activity, and various surviving art depicts these. So we can say that same-sex activity was known and accepted in the Roman (and Greek) world.
No we can't. Nero's "marriage" to Sporus was generally condemned and cited as evidence of a dissolute life. And as Nero was married to a woman at the time, it was certainly not a valid marriage in Roman terms.

Even inside the "marriage" in question, Sporus (who was, I think, a eunuch) was dressed as a woman, and treated as such -- this was a parody of real marriage, not an attempt to legalize a recognized same-sex relationship. And he was not introduced around as Nero's wife, companion, husband or whatever. I am happy to be corrected, but I believe the "marriage" dropped rapidly out of view.

John

Not only that, I used the word monogamous, which Nero's marriage(s) clearly were not.

In fact, it was against Roman law for a freeman to have sex with another freeman. Sex with slaves - male or female - was accepted and even expected, but marriage to an equal was punished by the loss of property and banishment. Same sex marriage wasn't recognized under Roman law.

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :

P.S. in my previous post I was only talking about male-male relationship in the Roman Empire. Female-female relationships are almost completely absent from the (male-written) surviving literature.

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It would be almost always accepted that the woman would be the inferior part of the relationship, which would be an unusual arrangement today.

Exactly. An extremely common pattern among historical cultures is that in heterosexual marriage: (a) the woman was nearly always substantially younger, and (b) regarded as being of a lower social class (by virtue of being female), and (c) emphasis was often placed on the fact that the woman was penetrated during the sex act. Usually when same-sex relationships occurred in those cultures there was an identical power-dynamic that was socially required: ie an older man would have a same-sex relationship with a substantially younger man, who was of a lower social class, and who was penetrated during the sex act. Breaking any of those 3 social rules for relationships was typically cause for censure.

In the Roman world there were three main classes: Citizen > Freedman > Slave. Breaking the age rule was socially okay for Roman citizens, if uncommon, but it wasn't socially acceptable for Roman citizens to break the other two rules (we can reasonably assume that nobody really cared if slaves and freedman broke them though). So it followed that to engage in a socially acceptable same-sex relationship, a citizen was required to be having sex with either a freedman or a slave and not another citizen, and the citizen was required to imply publicly that he was dominant in the bedroom (what actually happened in the bedroom was irrelevant).

quote:
Accounts of gay marriages where one man dresses as a woman would suggest that in a lot of cases the model of one man being superior to the other were common - whether there were examples of both men being equal in the relationship is something I don't know.

Precisely. Two citizens in a same-sex relationship would have been scandalous - see above. Two slaves would have been totally fine though and nobody would care... so much so that nobody would actually recognise their relationship as valid or meaningful because they were slaves (just as if they had a heterosexual relationship with each other).

quote:
Originally posted in Gee D:
I made no comment about same-sex activity. It was common and accepted within certain limitations. My comment was the lack of evidence about same-sex marriage

Okay. My point was primarily that "Monogamous gay relationships were clearly possible (and occurring) during the Greek and Roman periods (700BC through to 200AD)" and I would add that they were openly and publicly occurring, and that (assuming they occurred within the standard social restrictions covering age/status/sex-acts) they were socially acceptable.

Wedding ceremonies and marriages were a different kettle of fish entirely. And I was giving Nero's marriage not as an example of a socially acceptable gay wedding (it wasn't!) but as an example of a same-sex relationship openly occurring (and you don't get much more openly occurring than the Emperor marrying another man and commanding celebrations to be held in every Roman city in honour of the marriage!).

[ 07. May 2014, 11:17: Message edited by: Starlight ]

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

quote:
My point was primarily that "Monogamous gay relationships were clearly possible (and occurring) during the Greek and Roman periods (700BC through to 200AD)" and I would add that they were openly and publicly occurring, and that (assuming they occurred within the standard social restrictions covering age/status/sex-acts) they were socially acceptable.

There is no evidence that monogamous, gay (and the word "gay" is modern, western term that would have not existed then so I would use "same-sex") relationships were possible during the period. While these people carried on with same sex relationships they were having opposite sex relationships with women at the same time.

[ 07. May 2014, 11:26: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]

Posted by ToujoursDan (# 10578) on :

Forgot to add that Nero was still married to Statilia Messalina when he had Sporus castrated and married him.

[ 07. May 2014, 11:30: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Starlight:

quote:
...we can reasonably assume that nobody really cared if slaves and freedman broke them though...

This isn't quite accurate. Firstly, because in Ancient Rome (though not in Greece) a freedman would have been a Roman citizen as well. He would have had the right to vote in elections but not to hold public office or to become a Senator, and he would still have had obligations to his former owner who would have become his 'patron'. Secondly, because slaves were the property of their master, having a sexual relationship with a slave belonging to someone else was considered Not Quite The Thing; if the slave's master withheld permission it would have been illegal. Like joy-riding in someone else's car.

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Firstly, because in Ancient Rome (though not in Greece) a freedman would have been a Roman citizen as well. He would have had the right to vote in elections but not to hold public office or to become a Senator, and he would still have had obligations to his former owner who would have become his 'patron'.

Hmm... Freedman shared some of the rights of full citizens, which you accurately list. However, freedman themselves weren't full citizens, but their children were. As such, freedman were exempted from quite a lot of the social norms that governed the behaviour of full citizens, especially sexual norms. To some extent the Roman attitude was that when Romans citizens misbehaved sexually, the image of the Roman Empire itself was tarnished, but since freedman weren't citizens they therefore weren't representatives of Rome and couldn't thereby tarnish its image through any immorality they might commit (and thus it didn't overly matter what they did).

quote:
Secondly, because slaves were the property of their master, having a sexual relationship with a slave belonging to someone else was considered Not Quite The Thing; if the slave's master withheld permission it would have been illegal. Like joy-riding in someone else's car.

Agreed. A citizen having a relationship with someone else's slave was considered a bit iffy for that reason, and it was considered pretty essential to get permission from the owner of that slave.

I was talking though about slave-slave relationships, which we don't really know too much about, but which we can presume happened relatively frequently.

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
There is no evidence that monogamous, gay relationships were possible during the period.

That's just obviously false. What was stopping two men having a monogamous same-sex relationship? Nothing.

quote:
While these people carried on with same sex relationships they were having opposite sex relationships with women at the same time.

Roman men in the citizen class were entirely allowed to not have wives. Many lived and died single. If they wanted to never marry a woman and instead live their lives in a monogamous relationship with a man they could indeed do so. Same with the freedmen class.

quote:
gay (and the word "gay" is modern, western term that would have not existed then so I would use "same-sex") relationships

I was quoting you. Please forward your complaints about the phrasing to yourself.

However, I personally would agree with Williams in siding with you against yourself by taking the view that: While the sexual identity of being "gay" is a complex modern construct that it is dangerous to read back into other societies and that it problematic to ask whether a given person in the ancient world was "gay", it is, however, entirely legitimate to use the word as part of a phrase such as "gay relationship" or "gay sex" where it functions only a synonym for "male-male" or "same-sex" and carries no baggage relating to modern constructions of sexuality.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Starlight:

quote:
To some extent the Roman attitude was that when Romans citizens misbehaved sexually, the image of the Roman Empire itself was tarnished, but since freedman weren't citizens they therefore weren't representatives of Rome and couldn't thereby tarnish its image through any immorality they might commit (and thus it didn't overly matter what they did).

That may have been true during the Empire. Not sure how true it was during the Republic, or indeed how many of the ruling class actually lived up to the ideal. Judging by the behaviour of the British upper classes in more recent times, for every person who lived up to 'noblesse oblige' there would have been at least two who subscribed to the view 'I am a citizen of the most powerful Empire on the planet and I can do whatever the hell I like.'

I don't actually see the point of arguing that same-sex relationships should be allowed because of what went on in classical antiquity, anyway. Firstly because it is not likely to cut much ice with people who think that the Bible prohibits homosexuality (and would probably point out that these relationships are exactly what St Paul was talking about in Romans 1:26-7), and secondly because this (limited) sexual freedom you are touting applied only to men. Women had very little choice in the matter of sexual partners. Even free women were treated as property and expected to marry whoever their fathers told them to. On marriage they became the property of their husbands. There is far more mileage in arguing that the modern understanding of marriage is already changed beyond recognition.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

I don't know as much about Ancient Rome, but in Ancient Athens a male citizen was expected to marry a woman and have children, whether he took a a boy lover or not. Pederasty was supposed to be temporary and not last beyond the point at which the younger partner became old enough to marry.

I would expect that in Ancient Rome men were also expected to marry a woman to provide the family with a next generation. Starlight, why do you seem to assert otherwise?

When you say monogamy, do you mean with the exception of a man's wife?

Also, do you really think it would not turn heads in Ancient Greece or Rome if a man kept his "receptive" male lover well into the receptive partners' middle or old age? How is a lifelong relationship possible in this context?

The only famous case I can think of is Hadrian and Antinous, which given the Emperor's power to do as he pleased, cannot be seen as typical. And didn't Hadrian have a wife?

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
The only famous case I can think of is Hadrian and Antinous, which given the Emperor's power to do as he pleased, cannot be seen as typical. And didn't Hadrian have a wife?

Equally relevantly, Antinous died young and therefore can't be interpreted as evidence either way.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Starlight:
As such, freedman were exempted from quite a lot of the social norms that governed the behaviour of full citizens, especially sexual norms. To some extent the Roman attitude was that when Romans citizens misbehaved sexually, the image of the Roman Empire itself was tarnished, but since freedman weren't citizens they therefore weren't representatives of Rome and couldn't thereby tarnish its image through any immorality they might commit (and thus it didn't overly matter what they did).

This of course presupposes that if two freedmen had settled into an egalitarian sexual relationship, it would have been seen as misbehaviour or immorality. It's one thing to say that it is immorality, but it doesn't matter; another to say it's not immorality at all.

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
There is no evidence that monogamous, gay relationships were possible during the period.

That's just obviously false. What was stopping two men having a monogamous same-sex relationship? Nothing.

I think the absence of institutional public recognition is important. If you have an expectation of monogamy, somebody might say, 'I am not monogamous in principle, but it just so happens that I don't currently fancy anybody other than my present partner.' If you don't have a social recognition of monogamy, there's no way to distinguish whether two people are actually being monogamous, or whether they just don't currently fancy anyone else. (Promises made between two people don't make a difference if everybody else just thinks, that's the kind of thing lovers say.)

Posted by JFH (# 14794) on :

I'm not very knowledgeable about these specific times and the many philosophical arguments that go in and out of the statements about Roman sociology, but I am quite astounded by what I see as attempts to declare that 500 years of history or so, which would be relevant to the quoted times, over all across the Roman Empire, was monolithical and just the same. My experience of ancient Greece is just the opposite, and to think that some of those characteristics of multitude of philosophy and thought would not have survived into the Roman society seems to me somewhat historically naïve. Looking at modern authoritarian/traditionalist societies with old-fashioned order, it seems to me that there is still always a bit of room for the odd and unexpected, which I would expect from Roman society as well. Declaring that something just could not have existed or been thought of takes a heck of a lot of proof, IMHO.

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
I don't actually see the point of arguing that same-sex relationships should be allowed because of what went on in classical antiquity, anyway.

Agreed. This tangent arose with regard to ToujoursDan's view that the Bible's condemnation of same-sex activity is cultural - the implication of his view being that the Bible was right to condemn homosexuality in ancient times, but modern Christians who interpret the Bible as giving a timeless teaching against homosexuality are misapplying the Bible. This shields the bible from a certain level of criticism by implying the bible didn't "get it wrong".

I don't agree, however, that the bible was right to condemn homosexuality in ancient times. To defend that idea, ToujoursDan has made the claim that there were no monogamous same-sex relationships in ancient times, which seems to me to be patently absurd and totally indefensible.

quote:
Firstly because it is not likely to cut much ice with people who think that the Bible prohibits homosexuality (and would probably point out that these relationships are exactly what St Paul was talking about in Romans 1:26-7)

I'd actually agree with them that these male-male sexual relationships are indeed what's being referenced in Rom 1:26. Probably relationships very or exactly like what are common today.

However I take the view that Rom 1:18-32 is a paraphrase from Wisdom of Solomon and represents Paul quoting his opponent's viewpoint, not Paul's own viewpoint. Paul expresses disagreement with that viewpoint in Romans 2 and continues to dialogue and engage with his rhetorical opponent throughout much of the rest of his letter. (And I think this due to having spent years studying Paul's rhetorical argument in Romans with a view to understanding what he thought about salvation, not because I much care what Paul thought about homosexuality)

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
in Ancient Athens a male citizen was expected to marry a woman and have children, whether he took a a boy lover or not. Pederasty was supposed to be temporary and not last beyond the point at which the younger partner became old enough to marry.

Yep. Literature from ancient Greece specifically notes as unusual the times when men flouted this rule by retaining their same-sex lover permanently. That tells us that it was possible to do that and that it sometimes happened. And it also tells us that it was unusual, that it went against social custom, and that those men probably faced some level of social stigma as a result.

quote:
I would expect that in Ancient Rome men were also expected to marry a woman to provide the family with a next generation. Starlight, why do you seem to assert otherwise?

Williams explicitly analyses that question, and concludes that there appeared to be no stigma in Roman society against male citizens who chose to be single for life. Apparently Rome didn't place much, if any, emphasis on the importance of all citizens having children.

Like in Greece, Roman men were expected to give up their younger male lover when the younger men reached a certain age. And again, like in Greece, the sources comment specifically about men who did the unusual thing of retaining their lover well beyond the socially appropriate age limits.

quote:
When you say monogamy, do you mean with the exception of a man's wife?

I meant complete monogamy, ie no wife.

Although to the extent that wives were classed as servants / property by some ancient societies, it is tempting to regard the presence or absence of wives as somewhat irrelevant to the question of monogamy for same-sex relationships. eg I am reminded of a discussion in one of the Greek sources that goes something along the lines of advocating for monogamy in same-sex relationships because those are the important emotional relationships in one's life and that of course one has a wife one the side to give one children, but the relationship with her is not an emotional or important one (and hence visiting female prostitutes is totally fine, but sleeping with any other men beyond one's same-sex partner isn't fine).

quote:
Also, do you really think it would not turn heads in Ancient Greece or Rome if a man kept his "receptive" male lover well into the receptive partners' middle or old age? How is a lifelong relationship possible in this context?

Yep. Heads turned. People wrote about them. That's how we know they happened. And they were possible because there was nothing stopping them other than social convention. So the people who wanted such relationships had them and everyone else scratched their heads and said "that's not usual". Such relationship would have only been impossible if there were laws prohibiting them, and there weren't: There were no laws prohibiting same-sex acts, there were no laws forcing people to get married, there were no laws forcing people to have children... so people that wanted to live in a lifelong monogamous relationship with their same-sex partner could do this and did do this.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
exactly what St Paul was talking about

If Paul is the example, fewer straights would have relationships, yes? A relationship being the lesser of two evils according to what he wrote.

Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on :

Starlight, I’m going to take issue with the way you’re using the term “Roman world” there. First of all, you’re covering a vast time period. I'm not at all sure that things were the same in 380 AD as they were in the New Testament period.

In the first century AD, Caesar Augustus was very much interested in (as he saw it) cleaning up Roman morals by making sure that people got married. That they were expected to marry people of the opposite sex can be amply demonstrated by the fact that they were also expected to have children.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

This is often described as a basic feature of patriarchal societies, isn't it? They generally prescribe marriage and heterosexual sex, to produce lots of kids; women are often treated as inferior or in fact, as property; gay sex may be allowed, but you should still do your duty and propagate; men should be brutal bastards. Well, that's a rough paraphrase!

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

lilbuddha:

quote:
If Paul is the example, fewer straights would have relationships, yes? A relationship being the lesser of two evils according to what he wrote.

Indeed, but what would the paparazzi do then, poor things?

Paul also wrote 'in Christ there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male nor female,' providing a proof-text against slavery, sexism and racism in one neat sentence.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
That they were expected to marry people of the opposite sex can be amply demonstrated by the fact that they were also expected to have children.

There's a phrase about that which I can't quite remember: that single men were in some sense murderers of the state?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Which is simply bizarre. Most people are mostly heterosexual and babies will happen. Now, in at least modern understanding of sociological dynamics, children of a stable relationship are more likely to be good citizens, but as far as just producing more...

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

That reminds me of the Spartans, who are reputed to have regularly ritually humiliated bachelors, for failing in their generative duties, or whatever you call it.

Patriarchy devours everyone in its path.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

When Starlight said:

I was talking though about slave-slave relationships, which we don't really know too much about, but which we can presume happened relatively frequently.

we can't presume that these relationships were all same-sex, and certainly not at a rate higher than in our present day societies.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

My question was whether there could have been any moral expressions of same-sex sexual activity at the time Paul was writing. If Paul had seen an egalitarian same sex couple completely devoted to each other, would he have approved? Does it matter whether or not he would have approved?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
My question was whether there could have been any moral expressions of same-sex sexual activity at the time Paul was writing. If Paul had seen an egalitarian same sex couple completely devoted to each other, would he have approved?

Most likely not. Paul didn't like egalitarian opposite-sex couples, why would he like egalitarianism any better in a same-sex couple? Paul seemed to prefer relationships to be hierarchical.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Of course, for the majority of people (even evangelicals) we have already accepted the ideal of egalitarian marriage, despite what Paul wrote. I mentioned that in my first post on this thread, the role and status of women is a example, similar to the issue of slavery, where society and church have completely changed our views. And, how we interpret passages like the Ephesians one you linked to has changed, with other passages which express egalitarian positions trumping those that don't.

The debate on homosexuality is an outstanding issue, that I believe will eventually be pushed onto the heap of "historical interest only" with slavery and status of women. I can't really think of another area of Christian doctrine or practice that is dependent upon such a small number of verses, certainly not verses that are as unclear as many of those used to support bigoted opinions. Evangelicals have various guidelines on interpreting Scripture drummed into us, and not basing views on a small number of debatable verses was high on the list of things we were told was the right approach. Those who pluck a verse from Paul to say "there, homosexuals are sinners" are doing exactly what I was taught we shouldn't do when reading the Bible.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

But isn't sola scriptura based on an isolated reading of certain verses of Scripture? [Smile]

sorry for the tangent.

I don't think the homosexuality controversy is going to be resolved like slavery was anytime soon. We might see widespread legalization of same sex marriage and social acceptance of homosexuality in our corner of the world (along with Latin America and some parts of Asia), but as long as any Chrisian denomination tries to be global you won't see a flat out acceptance of homosexuality by the global Christian mainstream.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Slavery was "resolved", but we still see some of the effects (and, underlying causes) today in racism. There are still areas of the world where the treatment of workers on farms, plantation, in factories and domestic staff is not that far from slavery - and, quite often not seen as particularly wrong by those benefitting from pseudo-slavery, even by Christians. As long as we have places where some people are seen as inferior, subservient and exploitable (and, vice versa with others seen as superior etc) based on where they were born, their race and parentage then the "that's the way it is" common sense gut feeling that allowed slavery to persist is there. That different way of thinking that resulted in passages of Scripture being used to justify slavery in ways that to us seem bizzare.

And, yes there are large parts of the world where the social norm is such that the basic assumption that homosexual activity is viewed as a sin without any thought at all. That still creates what seem bizarre interpretations of Scripture (eg: why see the sin of Sodom to be related to homosexuality per se, after all didn't Lot offer his daughters to the mob - a very strange thing to do if they were all homosexuals!) to support the cultural view.

So, yes, the world has a way to go before we've actually killed off acceptance of slavery, even within the Church. We've even further to go before we treat all women as equal to men, even in the Church. Acceptance of homosexuality is further still. Much further. Which should just spur us on to work harder to hasten the day when we are all one in Christ Jesus.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

When I said the issue of slavery was resolved, I meant that the idea that one race is inferior to another and should serve the other (or should be "protected" by being controlled by the other and the idea that a human could be owned by another as property was no longer seen by any significant Christian group as justifiable by Scripture or any other source of doctrine. Of course slavery and pseudo-slavery still exist in the world, even in developed countries. But the vast majority
of Christians worldwide believe that slavery of the type that existed on New World plantations is indefensible within our religion. I don't see that happening with homosexuality even in the next century or so. I think that the current disconnect between the beliefs of the majority in developed countries and the teachings of global Christian denominations/movements will remain for some time and I'm not sure what if anything can resolve it.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Well, the resolution of slavery took decades until it was generally recognised as contrary to Scriptural teaching, longer until universally accepted.

We've only just started on resolving the injustice of attitudes to homosexuality. Sadly, I concur with your anticipated timescale. Unless our Lord returns in glory before then and knocks some heads together.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

At risk of quite a line-up of people wanting to shoot me for bringing this issue in, I think this is one of many places where interpretation of scripture has been skewed as a result of there being (nominally) ‘Christian countries’. This not only affects homosexuality and slavery, but also the place of women and right-wing attitudes to capitalism etc.

If you start from the proposition that Christians are not meant to do the Christian country thing (and please can we not go through the whole of that argument on this thread as well!), and if you think in terms of the international church itself being the only ‘Christian nation’ the world has, and not being supposed to fight physically for Christian moral standards; and if therefore Christians are supposed to live as ‘resident aliens’ in the society around them…

Then what the NT says about slavery is not ‘supporting’ slavery; but it is accepting it as a fact of life in pretty much every culture of the NT era (hopefully slightly more justly and fairly practiced by Jewish people observing laws which constantly reminded them of their own slavery in Egypt, and also bearing in mind their exile in Babylon). And indeed in that era much of modern more ‘free’ (in many senses) employment would have been quite economically difficult. In such a context Christians might well often be slaves, and have to know what was the Christian way to live with that; and indeed be slave-owners, in a situation where in many cases freeing a slave might not be in the slave’s best interests.

Among themselves Christians would be gradually influenced by the gospel teaching that ‘in Christ’ there is no ‘slave or free’, and how Philemon’s slave ‘Onesimus’ became ‘no longer a servant, but better… a beloved brother’. But living among pagans, they understood the need that they might have to live as slaves and witness for Christ into that situation.

A somewhat similar situation arose in relation to women; I must admit I find it hard to avoid the conclusion that a degree of subordination of women is implied even in the NT; but the context is one where Christian husbands are told to love their wives ‘as Jesus loved the Church’ (which in case you’d forgotten, is that He DIED for his churchly ‘bride’!). There is no encouragement in the NT to improper domineering. But there is also mention of another situation of wives of pagan husbands who treated them unjustly – and again the advice is, in effect, ‘turn the other cheek and follow Jesus’ example of unjust suffering’.

But when there was a ‘Christian nation’, and lots of people nominally Christian but not truly born again, this teaching could all too easily become distorted – a bit in the style of a case I once came across of a pastor who got his own way by saying things like “Never mind whether we’re hurting you – you have to practice love and turn the other cheek or you’re not a Christian anyway….” In effect, advice for Christians living Jesus-like lives among pagans got turned into statute-book court-enforceable laws for a supposedly Christian society – and of course slave-owners and bad husbands would take full advantage…. And in the long run it would become possible for slave-owners to be ‘bible-believing' Christians who genuinely believed they were doing right.

Unfortunately we can’t now know how things might have worked out if Christians had remained ‘peaceable resident aliens’ setting example rather than having the NT inappropriately imposed on a society which in reality was mixed. Eventually the ‘Christian countries’ did just about get persuaded to live up to the better view – but equally there are still many who think of themselves as ‘Christian’ but have racist attitudes from that history.

But in interpreting the Bible, you would need to understand that the NT is not rules for a ‘Christian state’; it is rules for citizens of the kingdom of Heaven living among worldly people who may not behave well, but to whom you must nevertheless ‘turn the other cheek’ etc.

As regards homosexuality there is at least a possible argument to be considered that Christians are not supposed to do gay sex – but that what the state allows is not our business as we are not supposed to be ‘allotriepiskopoi/ meddlers in other people’s business’. The state may allow homosexuality, even same-sex marriage – Christians simply have to show an alternative example.

Again, once there were ‘Christian states’, the ethics intended for Christians would be applied wholesale to the supposedly ‘Christian’ society; resulting in injustice.

And of course rules for the church got applied to the state in other ways, whence states fighting wars and persecuting in the name of Jesus. Try stepping back to the first century and seeing the church independent of the state, and there’s a different situation.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

OK, here's a hypothetical. It's the late 18th, early 19th century and the Atlantic Slave Trade is transporting thousands of people from Africa to America in chains, crammed like cargo into the holds of ships with many not surviving the journey, to be sold into service on plantations. For 1800 years the church has remained outside politics, the Christian faith has not become part of the system of government. Should Christians consider the slave trade to be a great evil? What should Christians do apart from not participating in the trade and owning slaves? If you live in Liverpool, where the slave trade has brought considerable wealth, what employment do you take up that doesn't directly or indirectly depend upon or support the slave trade?

I would suggest that you can't fight a great evil like slavery without getting directly involved in politics. You need people like Wilberforce, committed Christians with a powerful drive to end injustice serving in Parliament where they can turn that drive into government policy. You need people who can inspire the people to reject the evil of slavery, and get society to change for the better. All of which suggests that a simple "don't meddle" approach may not be the best way to remain true to the faith we live.

But, you're right this is heading towards a conversation that is probably better conducted elsewhere.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

While writing that I realised that there is a difference between the historic campaign against slavery and modern attitudes to homosexuality. I still think the questions relating to exegesis show considerable parallels.

But, the campaigns against slavery were conducted with Christians at the front of the movement. Christians, inspired by the demands of the faith to love neighbours and act justly, were among the foremost campaigners against the slave trade.

On the otherhand, in seeking equality of homosexual relationships, although the same demands of our faith to love neighbours and act against injustice should be there, the church is lagging behind the rest of society.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

My concern in my post above was that much of this argument has seemed to be conducted on the assumption that the Bible simplistically 'supported' slavery. I wanted to challenge that assumption; firstly by pointing to the very different original situation, with an economy and culture that was very different to ours, and secondly by pointing out that the NT was misinterpreted when advice intended for a 'resident alien' church was interpreted as positive law for a Christian state.

How Alan's hypothetical might be dealt with is not relevant to the exegetical issue, and to how that affects the comparison with gay issues. I tentatively suggest that had it been possible to maintain a balance between the state and Christianity as a successful and widespread 'free/nonconformist' religion, Christian influence could have been brought to bear on the slavery issue, and without supposed biblical approval of slavery built into the view of a supposedly Christian state.

The basic injustice towards homosexuality has been again that a supposedly Christian state imposed the issue as law for everybody. That needs to change, and SSM in the state needs to be recognised. Christian internal arguments on the subject need to be conducted separate from the issue of what ends up as law in the state at large.

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
My concern in my post above was that much of this argument has seemed to be conducted on the assumption that the Bible simplistically 'supported' slavery. I wanted to challenge that assumption; firstly by pointing to the very different original situation, with an economy and culture that was very different to ours, and secondly by pointing out that the NT was misinterpreted when advice intended for a 'resident alien' church was interpreted as positive law for a Christian state.

The exegetical question really rests on this. There was a period when the Bible was used to support slavery, before the anti-slavery laws were brought through and even by Christian opposing such laws. We look back and say "their exegesis was faulty", and say now that the Bible does not support slavery - at best it's neutral with instructions for Christians to treat slaves humanely.

I'm not going to blame the faulty exegesis on the Church getting into bed with the State. I suspect that whether the State was "Christian" or not would be irrelevant - society as a whole accepted slavery, considered it part of life, took it for granted that non-European people were inferior and therefore could be subjegated. For the vast majority of people this was "self evident truth", and when they read Scripture they saw support for what they already accepted as obvious. It took considerable time for people who did not accept the received wisdom to chip away at what others saw as obvious before the tide changed - a classic example of paradigm shift. Once people managed to put aside the bias of "well, it's obvious" and look at the Bible afresh then what they saw as support for slavery became very weak, and the Scriptural arguments against slavery became very much stronger.

We are still on the upswing from that change in perspective. We have moved from "it's obvious some people are inferior" to "all people are equal", though some of the old ways still persist in racism. In many ways the increasing equality for women and homosexuals is part of that same movement towards the equality of all people.

Should the Church be taking a lead in reforming society, so that the ideal of all people being equal is true for all not just those who are in Christ? I can't see how that can't be part of bringing in the Kingdom of Christ (as a non-political entity); if we are called to make disciples of all people then that means we are called to call all people to follow Christ. Which is more than just saying a prayer and "being saved", it's about all of our lives - and if that means changing lives to follow Christ before people are "saved" that's good for me. That's a long way short of the Church dictating government policy, but possibly further than you would want to go.

Of course, the Church has failed because we are no longer in the vanguard of bringing equality to all, and are generally tagging along behind (often digging in heals and kicking and screaming) as the rest of society moves on ahead of us. We can't even manage equality for all who are in Christ. It's a sad day for the Church when those who do not identify as Christians often do a better job of emulating our Lord who welcomed and ate with all - Jew, Samaritan, Roman, Pharisee or tax collector, men or women. When those who don't identify as Christian do a better job of treating all equally - slave or free, man or women, Jew or Greek, straight or gay, all are one.

Posted by Net Spinster (# 16058) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

But, the campaigns against slavery were conducted with Christians at the front of the movement. Christians, inspired by the demands of the faith to love neighbours and act justly, were among the foremost campaigners against the slave trade.

Christians were in the front line for two reasons in the UK. One most people were Christian (and to be specific Church of England) so 1% of Christians would still dominate even if 50%+ of other groups were involved. Two only members of the Church of England could sit in Parliament so CoE members had to be the involved politicians. It was the dissenters, Quakers and Unitarians and freethinkers, who were earlier and stauncher as groups in the movement (it was my CoE/Church of Scotland ancestors and relatives who were slave traders and owners and supporters; it was my Quaker/Unitarian/Freethinker ancestors and relatives who were abolitionists).

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

Just to be clear, I'm worried that Christians acting as "aliens in a hostile world" can go too far. The worst extreme, I think, would be anabaptist nonresistance. Nonviolence is fine, but where there is systemic injustice (like slavery), I would think the only moral course of action would be some form of resistance, even "passive resistance" of the Gandhi and MLK, Jr., kind. If early Christian martyrs were willing to die over not having to offer worship to idols of the emperor, then they should have been willing to die for the also seemingly-impossible and one-could-claim-would-cause-more-harm-than-good-at-the-time goal of ending slavery, liberating women, etc. Especially after a few centuries had passed and people kept on accepting martyrdom for the faith even though they had figured out the second coming wasn't happening as soon as they had hoped.

The sad thing is that it doesn't seem that ending slavery, liberating women, or anything to do with same-sex couples was on the agenda of early Christians. Women had a significant role in the Early Church and slaves were able to worship and socialize in Christian communities on a much more equal basis with others than they could in outside society, but ending social injustice did not seem to be an end in itself. Even when Christians attained political power, they did not focus on ending social injustice so much as fighting "immorality" and using public resources for acts of charity.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Net Spinster:

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

But, the campaigns against slavery were conducted with Christians at the front of the movement. Christians, inspired by the demands of the faith to love neighbours and act justly, were among the foremost campaigners against the slave trade.

Christians were in the front line for two reasons in the UK. One most people were Christian (and to be specific Church of England) so 1% of Christians would still dominate even if 50%+ of other groups were involved. Two only members of the Church of England could sit in Parliament so CoE members had to be the involved politicians. It was the dissenters, Quakers and Unitarians and freethinkers, who were earlier and stauncher as groups in the movement (it was my CoE/Church of Scotland ancestors and relatives who were slave traders and owners and supporters; it was my Quaker/Unitarian/Freethinker ancestors and relatives who were abolitionists).

Bear in mind thought at the very time the slaves trade was being stopped and slaves emancipated, the slave trade at home was at its zenith. The 1830's was the most repressive time for the factory workers at the height of the industrial revolution - and many of the factory owners were staunch non conformists. There's still redress to be made on both sides of the Atlantic.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

by Alan Cresswell;

quote:
I'm not going to blame the faulty exegesis on the Church getting into bed with the State.

Even though that was the basic practical reason for the faulty exegesis?

further by AC;

quote:
the Bible does not support slavery - at best it's neutral with instructions for Christians to treat slaves humanely.

The actual biblical position is more complex than that; but the point is that such a position lasted till the nationalisation of the church, after which the idea that the Bible does support slavery pretty much took over until over a thousand years later - and even then, as Net Spinster pointed out, it was hardly the established church that took the lead, though obviously because of the inequality of the establishment situation, the established church had to be significantly persuaded before the change could be put into practice.

by stonespring;

quote:
The sad thing is that it doesn't seem that ending slavery, liberating women, or anything to do with same-sex couples was on the agenda of early Christians. Women had a significant role in the Early Church and slaves were able to worship and socialize in Christian communities on a much more equal basis with others than they could in outside society, but ending social injustice did not seem to be an end in itself. Even when Christians attained political power, they did not focus on ending social injustice so much as fighting "immorality" and using public resources for acts of charity.

There's a question of means here; Christians were not supposed to change things by violent rebellion, but by preaching, example, and yes, risking martyrdom for being an alternative to the culture surrounding them. 'When Christians attained political power' is a questionable thing which had questionable results. Of course while Christians didn't have political power they didn't seek to persecute gays to impose Christian morality on unbelievers....

In some ways that is the point - why shouldn't Christians have a differing moral view on sex to the society around them, and expect people who join the church to follow that Christian moral view? Why shouldn't they be free to persuade others that their view is right and that people should join them? On the understanding, of course, that they are separate from the state and do not seek to impose their views on others by law with criminal sanction?

The 'Christian state' would be likely to behave badly precisely because it was in a position that shouldn't have happened and which would naturally distort its exegesis.

Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Steve Langton:
by Alan Cresswell;

quote:
I'm not going to blame the faulty exegesis on the Church getting into bed with the State.
Even though that was the basic practical reason for the faulty exegesis?

further by AC;

quote:
the Bible does not support slavery - at best it's neutral with instructions for Christians to treat slaves humanely.
The actual biblical position is more complex than that; but the point is that such a position lasted till the nationalisation of the church, after which the idea that the Bible does support slavery pretty much took over until over a thousand years later - and even then, as Net Spinster pointed out, it was hardly the established church that took the lead, though obviously because of the inequality of the establishment situation, the established church had to be significantly persuaded before the change could be put into practice.

by stonespring;

quote:
The sad thing is that it doesn't seem that ending slavery, liberating women, or anything to do with same-sex couples was on the agenda of early Christians. Women had a significant role in the Early Church and slaves were able to worship and socialize in Christian communities on a much more equal basis with others than they could in outside society, but ending social injustice did not seem to be an end in itself. Even when Christians attained political power, they did not focus on ending social injustice so much as fighting "immorality" and using public resources for acts of charity.
There's a question of means here; Christians were not supposed to change things by violent rebellion, but by preaching, example, and yes, risking martyrdom for being an alternative to the culture surrounding them. 'When Christians attained political power' is a questionable thing which had questionable results. Of course while Christians didn't have political power they didn't seek to persecute gays to impose Christian morality on unbelievers....

In some ways that is the point - why shouldn't Christians have a differing moral view on sex to the society around them, and expect people who join the church to follow that Christian moral view? Why shouldn't they be free to persuade others that their view is right and that people should join them? On the understanding, of course, that they are separate from the state and do not seek to impose their views on others by law with criminal sanction?

The 'Christian state' would be likely to behave badly precisely because it was in a position that shouldn't have happened and which would naturally distort its exegesis.

The simple answer is that the separation of Church and State was antithetical to ancient thought. I don't think the early Christians had any concept of it either. The medieval Church claimed to not be under the jurisdiction of secular states but since it meddled in governmental affairs all the time, it did not advocate a separation of church and state either. Even a lot of the radical reformation movements that were quashed by the RCC and state protestant Churches wanted basically to establish a "Kingdom of God" on earth that involved using the state and/or the sword to enforce Christian morality. The Mennonites, Quakers, Baptists and other radical reformation groups that embraced a real separation of Church and state were almost a reaction against the earlier Munsterites that got all Communist and bloody with their Christian utopianism. Separation of Church and state isa great idea, but did it exist for most of the history of the Church? Absolutely not.

The resistance to social injustice that I think is morally required of Christians and everyone else must involve organizing to make governmental policy reflect a more just social order (ie, if slavery is legal, it should be made illegal). So political protests, supporting laws that correct injustices, and even supporting candidates who support those laws are all things that moral people should do. Of course, there are more than one sources of injustice in the world, and there rarely is a clear choice between one candidate who is for all the right causes of social justice and another candidate who is not. But there is no convenient separation that can be made between religion and politics.

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If Paul is the example, fewer straights would have relationships, yes?

You mention a good point, which I'd been thinking about today...

There's a tendency among Christian scholars to assume that the ancient Jews were under massive social pressure to have children, right throughout Jewish history, because the Jews needed to breed to survive. I guess this is what's driving stonespring's questions/assumptions that men in same-sex relationships in the ancient world would have had to have a wife on the side.

As I've mentioned already, the data from Rome itself indicates that there was not strong pressure on the Roman citizens to have children (with a limited exception relating to some reforms made by Augustus), and that remaining single for life was socially acceptable, and is documented to have occurred. And thus, by implication, we can deduce that same-sex male couples did not have to have wives if they didn't want them.

However, there's a widespread tendency to assume that the situation was different for Jews, and that Jews in Judea would have had to have wives and children and therefore same-sex relationships among them couldn't be monogamous in a strict sense. But... as you point out, Paul was single. And so was Jesus. And the New Testament contains no hint of suggestion of any social critique of either of them for being single. In fact, Paul endorses it as optimal. So if Paul was at all even aware of any sort of social idea along the lines of "it's good for Jews to breed for there to be more Jews", then he clearly explicitly rejected it with regard to any sort of idea that "it's good for Christians to breed for there to be more Christians".

Furthermore, toward the end of the second century AD, Marcionism seems to have been extremely popular in the Roman empire (to the point where Marcionites may have outnumbered orthodox Christians), and it had very strong teachings on celibacy and refraining from sex and from marriage (which some scholars have cited as a likely reason for its eventual failure since its adherents weren't breeding and so it had to sustain itself from converts only). So it seems abundantly clear that men in that time period could and did refrain from marrying a woman (and hence same-sex couples wouldn't be pressured to have wives on the side).

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
The debate on homosexuality is an outstanding issue, that I believe will eventually be pushed onto the heap of "historical interest only" with slavery and status of women.

Yes.
Although it's an interesting question as to whether it will take Christianity with it. I can't imagine that in 100 years time that there will seriously be any churches that are anti-gay. But the number of churches and groups that are doubling-down on their anti-gay stances (eg Evangelical Alliance) in the present seems pretty high. The price they will pay for that in membership losses is going to be horrendous as they continue to hold ever more firmly to an increasingly unpopular position, and then subsequently are going to have to change their teachings. An analysis of possible futures deserves a thread of its own, but I suspect this issue is going to be an unmitigated disaster for churches in the western world, possibly terminal.

(Although I suspect demographics will do the job anyway... "no religion" on the census has been climbing at a very linear rate of 1.0 percentage point per year here in NZ for the last 25 years, and a look at the age-breakdown of that shows the trend will continue for the foreseeable future since younger people are less religious.)

quote:
the campaigns against slavery were conducted with Christians at the front of the movement. Christians, inspired by the demands of the faith to love neighbours and act justly, were among the foremost campaigners against the slave trade.

On the otherhand, in seeking equality of homosexual relationships, although the same demands of our faith to love neighbours and act against injustice should be there, the church is lagging behind the rest of society.

Yes.
And that is why I, personally, never particularly considered the church at fault for the issue of slavery. Because, say what you will about the complicity of Christians in the slave trade, it was Christians acting out of their Christian convictions who ultimately stood up for those convictions and ended slavery. Slavery was an evil on which there were Christians on both sides, so to my mind Christianity merely grayed its reputation rather than blackened it.

However, far from being social leaders on gay rights, Christians are not only lagging behind society but clearly impeding progress on a global scale. Therefore I consider Christianity and Christians seriously at fault for harm done to gay people. Christians today are digging their heels in and endorsing anti-gay attitudes, and to my mind thus pulling the guilt onto themselves of the church's 2000 year persecution of gay people - rather than dissociate themselves from Christianity's sordid and evil 2000 year history of executing, persecuting, and denying rights to gay people, today's outspoken Christian leaders support it in an overwhelming majority.

So I think that on the issue of homosexuality, the church has done evil to a level it has never ever before achieved, because far from Christians leading the change away from the evil, it is Christians who hold on to and endorse the evil. So I think the Church is definitely guilty on this issue in a way that it is not convincingly guilty on with regard to slavery.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

I was in a lecture this week where the speaker quoted Richard Burridge, Dean of King’s College, who in his paper “Slavery, Sexuality, and the Inclusive Community” on the lines that whilst there are indeed six or so biblical verses seemingly critical of some homosexual acts, there are many more biblical verses which uphold both slavery and apartheid.

Posted by Steve Langton (# 17601) on :

by Stonespring;

quote:
The simple answer is that the separation of Church and State was antithetical to ancient thought. I don't think the early Christians had any concept of it either.

Separation of Church and State is difficult for anybody to grasp - try discussing it with a Muslim with their strong notion of 'Unity/Taw'hid' (I think I got the Arabic word right) which is the basis of Islamic notions of a religious state, Sharia law etc.

But if you check it out you will find that the NT does put forward such separation in the context of first, that Jesus' kingdom is 'not of this world', and secondly that the Church itself is in NT terms 'God's holy nation', clearly depicted as being international and ipso facto living as resident aliens who have 'come out' of the surrounding society to be 'separate' from it. (And much more so than in the USA, where modern right-wing Christianity is regarded by Anabaptists as being 'Neo-Constantinian' rather than a biblical position)

Also Stonespring;

quote:
The Mennonites, Quakers, Baptists and other radical reformation groups that embraced a real separation of Church and state were almost a reaction against the earlier Munsterites that got all Communist and bloody with their Christian utopianism.

I'm currently reading up on Munster and it seems that actually there were well established (sorry for the ironic choice of word) pacifist Anabaptists before Munster and the key Munster leaders were going against the main trend in such circles, rather than later peaceable Anabaptists reacting against them. I'll probably be much better informed in a few weeks; even so that period was muddled, as you say - probably better to look where it ended up than all the messy things that happened along the way

by Starlight;

quote:
However, far from being social leaders on gay rights, Christians are not only lagging behind society but clearly impeding progress on a global scale. Therefore I consider Christianity and Christians seriously at fault for harm done to gay people. Christians today are digging their heels in and endorsing anti-gay attitudes, and to my mind thus pulling the guilt onto themselves of the church's 2000 year persecution of gay people - rather than dissociate themselves from Christianity's sordid and evil 2000 year history of executing, persecuting, and denying rights to gay people, today's outspoken Christian leaders support it in an overwhelming majority.

'Persecution' requires being in a position to persecute; which of course is the case for the assorted established/quasi-established/ would-be-established forms of Christianity. And I object to their persecution whether aimed at other religions, Christian dissidents, or gay people. But it may still be the case that 'free church' Christians (e,g, Anabaptists) may DISAGREE that gay sex is allowable FOR CHRISTIANS. Such a position is no more persecution than it is to say that "If you join our sporting club we expect you to keep the rules of our sport".

Unfortunately the present situation is very confused, as in the case of David Silvester who as a Baptist should have known better than to object to SSM for a plural democracy and to blether about England being a 'Christian country'.

Posted by *Leon* (# 3377) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Which is simply bizarre. Most people are mostly heterosexual and babies will happen. Now, in at least modern understanding of sociological dynamics, children of a stable relationship are more likely to be good citizens, but as far as just producing more...

It seems to me that the reason you had an obligation to have children was so that someone had the responsibility for looking after you in old age. Society didn't like destitute old people cluttering up the place but didn't have a foolproof mechanism for dealing with the problem.

Now we have pensions, we can stop being homophobic.

Posted by Starlight (# 12651) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Interesting, but not unexpected since strict Biblical literalism was invented largely to support the institution of slavery.

A well-written article out this week observes that the defense of segregation was the origin of the US Religious Right. It reminded me of this thread.

(It also notes the not-often-enough-repeated historical fact that US Evangelicals used to support abortion.)

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0