Chapter 4: Is Right and Wrong Simply a Matter of Culture? Early Christianity was a revolution that swept through the ancient world like fire through dry timber. It was a countercultural movement that challenged the pivotal institutions of Roman society.
As Tertullian wrote, "Our contest lies against the institutions of our ancestors, against the authority of tradition, against man-made laws, against the reasonings of the worldly wise, against antiquity, and against customs." How strange it is, therefore, that the modern Church claims that the Christians of the first few centuries were merely teaching and practicing the culture of their day.
This is particularly ironic since the Romans bitterly criticized the Christians for just the opposite—for not following the cultural norms of their day. But the relationship of the early Christians to their culture is not simply a matter of past history; it's something that should deeply concern the Church today. For most of the cultural issues facing 20th-century Christians are the very same issues that faced the early Church. However, our response to these issues has generally been quite different than theirs.
Now we come to our first subheading, which is Divorce: A Roman Plague. As in most societies, the family was the core unit of Roman civilization. But as is true today, marriages were often unhappy. Both husbands and wives frequently had lovers. By the time of Christ, extramarital affairs on the part of both husbands and wives were so frequent that they were no longer scandalous. Not surprisingly, divorce was fairly commonplace. Roman men and women often married four or five times.
As Tertullian remarked, "As for divorce, women longed for it as though it were the natural consequence of marriage." In Roman society, most marriages were arranged by the parents of the bride and groom. Newly wedded couples were not usually in love with each other and often hardly knew each other on their wedding day. Frequently, there was a considerable age difference between husband and wife.
This was true among Christians as well as in Roman society in general, so it would be far easier to justify divorce in Roman society than in our society today. Nevertheless, the early Christians didn't rationalize matters from a human viewpoint. Even though divorce was considered perfectly proper in their society, they didn't permit divorce except perhaps for adultery, and even then it's not certain if they allowed remarriage.
As Origen wrote, "What God has joined together, let no man separate, neither government nor any other power. For God, who joined them together, is more mighty than all others that a person could name or even conceive." Christians took Jesus' words seriously when he said, "Whoever divorces his wife except for sexual immorality and marries another commits adultery." Now, the strict position of the early Christians against divorce obviously wasn't a reflection of their culture.
But what about our attitude toward divorce? Haven't our views followed the trends of our culture? Forty years ago, an evangelical Christian wouldn't have dreamed of divorcing his or her spouse merely because of incompatibility. Yet today, the divorce rate among evangelicals equals that of the world. So what has changed? Certainly not Scripture. Rather, the conservative block of American society has changed its viewpoint on divorce.
Evangelicals often pride themselves for opposing "worldly attitudes and trends," but in reality, what we so often oppose is merely the liberal segment of the world. Once a practice is accepted by the conservative element, the Church soon follows in stride. Divorce has been a prime example. Our next subheading is Abortion: Not a 20th-century Phenomenon. As is true of the world today, Romans were concerned about unwanted pregnancies.
Lacking the modern means of birth control, Romans took care of unwanted pregnancies in three ways: strangling newborn babies, abandoning babies by the roadside where they either died or were taken as slaves, or aborting the fetus. Contrary to what I used to think, abortion is no 20th-century invention.
The Christian lawyer Mark Felix chided the Romans, "There are some women among you who, by drinking special potions, extinguish the life of the future human in their very bowels, thus committing murder before they even give birth." Again, the early Christians took a strong stand against what was considered a completely moral, civilized practice.
When some Romans raised the ridiculous charge against Christians that they murdered and ate infants as part of their religious ceremonies, Athenagoras, a Christian apologist who wrote around 170 AD, answered those charges with these words: "When we say that those women who used drugs to bring on abortion actually commit murder and will have to render an account to God for this, how could we possibly murder infants?
It would not make sense for us to regard the very fetus in the womb as a created being and therefore an object of God's care, and then when it is born to kill it." Tertullian explained to the Romans, "In our case, since murder is absolutely forbidden in any form, we may not destroy even the fetus in the womb. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier form of killing.
It matters not whether you take away a life that is born or destroy one that has not yet come to birth." Admirably, evangelical Christians today have generally stood just as uncompromisingly against abortion as the early Christians did. I hope that our stance is completely independent of our culture, but I don't know that it is. The conservative block of American society hasn't yet accepted abortion. Conservative lawmakers and justices are normally opposed to it. If their attitudes change, will ours follow suit?
Right now, it seems impossible that we would ever change our attitudes on abortion. However, a century ago, no one dreamed that divorce would someday be commonplace in the evangelical Church. Our next subheading is High Fashion and Low Modesty.
Peter had instructed women, "Do not let your beauty be that outward adorning of arranging the hair, of wearing gold, or of putting on fine apparel." Paul gave similar instructions, "In like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, but which is proper for women professing godliness with good works." In giving these exhortations, the apostles weren't simply reinforcing the cultural norms of their day.
They were doing just the opposite. A fashionable Roman woman used virtually every beauty aid that her modern counterpart uses. She began the day by arranging her hair and putting on her makeup. She painted her lips, applied black eyeshadow, put on false eyelashes, coated her face with white powder, and smoothed rouge onto her cheeks. She wore her hair in an elaborate hairdo complete with curls, bangs, and ornate layers of braids. Some women wore imported wigs from India, and many dyed their hair blond.
One Roman commented to his female friend, "While you remain at home, your hair is at the hairdresser's. You take out your teeth at night, and you sleep tucked away in a hundred cosmetic boxes. Even your face does not sleep with you. Then you wink at men under an eyebrow you took out of a drawer that same morning." Roman women adorned the rest of their bodies as much as their faces. When going out, they would array themselves with jewels, often wearing expensive rings on every finger.
Fashionable women insisted on wearing gowns made of imported materials such as silk, even though pound for pound, silk cost then as much as gold. Clement commented whimsically, "The body of such ladies wouldn't fetch a thousand drachmas," which was a coin of little value, "but they will pay ten thousand talents," which would be more than the average Roman earned in a lifetime, "for a single dress." So their clothes are worth more than they are.
Even many Roman men wore cosmetics and dressed as lavishly as the women. In contrast, the Church discouraged the use of cosmetics and exhorted men and women to be content with simple clothing. Not only was simple clothing less costly, but luxurious dresses were often transparent and clung sensuously to a woman's figure. Clement remarked, "Luxurious clothing that cannot conceal the shape of the body is no covering at all. Such clothing, clinging close to the body, takes the body's shape and adheres to the flesh.
It outlines the woman's figure so that the whole shape of her body is visible to spectators, even though they cannot actually see the body itself. Such clothing is meant for looking, not for covering." Nevertheless, the early Church did not try to legislate the type of clothing Christians should wear. While the Church emphasized the principles of simple, modest dress, the specific application of those principles was left up to the individual Christian.
Aside from clothing, the Christian standard of modesty for both men and women also differed from those of Roman society. This was particularly apparent in public and private baths. Few other societies, except for the Japanese, have had such a penchant for hot baths as the Romans. Bathing was the national pastime, and public baths were one of the primary meeting places of Roman society. In the early days of the Roman Republic, baths for men and women had been strictly segregated.
However, by the second century, mixed bathing in the nude was customary. Upper-class Romans often had baths in their homes, but modesty there was little different. Clement describes these private baths. "Some women will scarcely undress in front of their own husbands out of a pretense of modesty, but anyone else who wants to may see them at home shut up, naked in their baths, for they are not embarrassed to strip before spectators as if exposing their bodies for sale.
Those who have not become utterly destitute of modesty shut out strangers, yet they bathe with their own servants. They even strip naked in front of their slaves and are massaged by them." In sharp contrast, Christians taught that men and women should not bathe publicly in each other's presence. Their attitudes towards modesty weren't a reflection of Roman culture, but of godly culture. Don't the Roman attitudes on modesty also have their parallels today in American society?
Most Americans would be quite embarrassed to be seen in public in their underwear. Yet they think nothing of relaxing at a poolside in swimsuits that are no less revealing. And don't we Christians generally follow right along with our culture? We appear in public in swimwear that would have shocked even non-Christians only 50 years ago. Yet because our swimwear is acceptable to the modern conservative community, we think nothing of it.
I say this in self-criticism because I used to label Christians who objected to modern swimsuits as being prudish or Victorian. The testimony of the early Christians has made me rethink my position. Our next subheading is Roman R-rated Entertainment. Upper-class Romans enjoyed a lot of leisure time. They filled their evenings and holidays with gluttonous banquets, the theater, and sporting events at the arena. Banquets sometimes lasted as long as 10 hours.
It was not unheard of for a banquet to consist of 22 courses, including such "delicacies" as pig's udders and peacock tongues. But Christians took no delight in these gluttonous feasts. The Roman theater was borrowed from the Greeks, and the favorite dramatic themes were crime, adultery, and immorality. Either boys or prostitutes played the female roles. Although the theater was a favorite pastime of educated Romans, Christians shunned the theater with disgust.
Lactantius wrote, "I am inclined to think that the corrupting influence of the stage is even worse than that of the arena. The subjects of comedies are the deflowering of virgins or the loves of prostitutes. Similarly, the tragedies parade before the eyes of the audience, the murder of parents and acts of incest committed by wicked kings. Is the art of the mimes any better? They teach adultery by acting it out.
How do we expect our young people to respond when they see that these things are practiced without shame and that everyone eagerly watches?" Tertullian added, "The father who carefully protects and guards his virgin daughter's ears from every polluting word takes her to the theater himself, exposing her to all its vile language and attitudes." Tertullian asked rhetorically, "How can it be right to look at the things that are wrong to do?
How can those things which defile a man when they go out of his mouth not defile him when going in through his eyes and ears?" Although it was mainly the upper-class Romans who attended the theater and banquets, the rich and poor alike enjoyed the arena. The games in the arena were designed to quench the Romans' undying thirst for violence, brutality, and blood. The brutal chariot races were the favorite event.
In the courses of these races, chariots would inevitably crash, catapulting their drivers onto the racetrack, where they would either be dragged to death by the panic-stricken horses or trampled by another driver's team. All the while, the crowd would go wild with excitement. However, even the death and violence that accompanied chariot racing failed to satisfy the Roman thirst for blood.
So wild animals, sometimes hundreds of them, were brought into the arena to fight against each other: wolves against stags, lions against bulls, packs of dogs against bears, and just about any other combination that twisted minds could think of. Sometimes armed men hunted down animals. Other times, starved animals hunted down unarmed Christians. But the Romans wanted even more. So human gladiators were pitted against each other to fight to the death.
Now, gladiators were normally prisoners who had already been condemned to death. So the Romans thought that they were being noble to give these men a "fighting chance." If a gladiator triumphed in repeated fights, he could actually eventually win his freedom. However, once again, Christians did not follow the culture of their day.
Lactantius told his fellow Romans, "He who finds it pleasurable to watch a man being killed, even though the man has been legally condemned, pollutes his conscience just as much as though he were an accomplice or willing spectator of a murder committed in secret." Yet they call these sports where human blood is shed. When they see men placed under the stroke of death, begging for mercy, can they be righteous when they not only permit the men to be killed but demand it?
They cast their cruel and inhuman votes for death, not being satisfied by the mere flowing of blood or the presence of gashing wounds. In fact, they order the gladiators, although wounded and lying on the ground, to be attacked again and their corpses to be pummeled with blows to make certain that they're not merely feigning death. The crowds are even angry with the gladiators if one of the two isn't slain quickly. As though they thirsted for human blood, they hate delays.
By steeping themselves in this practice, they have lost their humanity. Therefore, it is not fitting that we who strive to stay on the path of righteousness should share in this public homicide. When God forbids us to kill, He not only prohibits the violence that is condemned by public laws, but He also forbids the violence that is deemed lawful by men. Are we willing to take such an uncompromising stand toward entertainment today? After reading such counsel, I stepped back and took a look at myself.
I had to admit that I had been letting my culture dictate my standards for entertainment. Yes, I avoided movies that would be considered risqué by the conservative community. Nevertheless, I still ended up watching entertainment that was saturated with violence, crime, and immorality. I was willing to accept obscenity, profanity, and flashes of nudity so long as the motion picture industry didn't give the movie a rating worse than PG-13.
So I had let the motion picture industry decide for me what was and wasn't fit to see. My culture had determined my standards for entertainment. Our next subheading is Evolution Before Darwin. The Romans could enjoy watching other humans being slaughtered with swords and torn apart by wild animals because they believed that man was simply a highly developed animal. The belief that humans have slowly evolved into their present form of life isn't a modern view at all.
And the belief that the universe came into being because of the chance collision of particles of matter isn't new either. Educated Romans shared many of the same views as today's secular scientists and humanistic society. One early Christian wrote, "Some men deny the existence of any divine power. Others inquire daily as to whether or not one exists.
Still, others would construct the whole fabric of the universe by chance accidents and by random collision, fashioning it by the movement of atoms of different shapes." Yes, even the term atom isn't a 20th-century invention, but a term coined by the ancient Greek philosophers. Lactantius also discussed the Roman scientific thought of his day, saying, "Some people teach that the first men lived nomadic lives among the woods and plains. They were not united by any bond of speech or laws.
Instead, they lived in caves and grottoes using leaves and grass for their beds. They were prey to the beasts and stronger animals. Eventually, those who had escaped, having been torn by wild beasts, sought out the company of other men for protection. At first, they communicated to each other by nods. Then they tried elementary forms of speech.
By attaching names to various objects, they little by little developed a system of speech." Accordingly, the Christian belief that all humans can trace their origin to the first human pair meant that all humans were equally brothers and sisters, a rather novel idea to Roman culture. So by teaching divine creation, Christians weren't simply parroting what everyone else in their culture already believed. In fact, educated Greeks and Romans ridiculed Christians for their belief in creation.
Those same intellectuals freely accepted the writings of other ethnic groups concerning the origin of man, no matter how ridiculous they were. But they summarily rejected the writings of Jews and Christians on the subject of creation, no matter how much sense they made. Our next subheading is To the Romans, All Persons Were Not Created Equal. Firstly, every human society has maintained class distinctions, and Rome was no exception. Wealthy Romans looked down on poor Romans. Free men looked down on slaves.
Certain occupations were viewed as superior to others. Even the Jews had such class distinctions among themselves. Roman citizens viewed themselves as superior to all other peoples. Once again, however, the early Christians went against the cultural current of the day. In fact, their teachings on the brotherhood of man were nothing short of revolutionary. Clement wrote, "God gave His own Son to all persons in common, and He created all things for everyone.
Therefore, all things are common to all and are not for the rich to appropriate an undue share. The expression, 'I possess and possess an abundance, so why should I not enjoy?' is suitable neither for the individual nor for society. More worthy of love is, 'I have, so why shouldn't I give to those who need?' It is monstrous for one person to live in luxury while many are in want." Writing a century later, Lactantius said, "In God's sight, no one is a slave. No one is a master.
Since we all have the same Father, we are all equally His children. No one is poor in God's sight except the one lacking in justice. No one is rich except the one with an abundance of virtues." The reason why neither the Romans nor the Greeks could possess justice was that they had so many class distinctions: the rich and the poor, the powerful and the lowly, the highest authority of kings, and then the common individual.
However, someone may say, "Isn't it true that among Christians, some are poor and others are rich? Some are masters and others are servants? Isn't there some distinction between persons?" But there is none. In fact, the very reason we call each other brothers is that we believe we are all equal. Although the physical circumstances of Christians' lives may differ, we view no persons as servants. Instead, we speak of them and treat them as brothers in spirit and as fellow servants of Christ.
The role of women in Roman religion. Paul had told the Corinthians, "Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak. But they are to be submissive, as the law also says.
And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is shameful for women to speak in church." And he told Timothy, "Let a woman learn in silence with all submission, and I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence." In no other area are the scriptures so frequently attacked today than on this teaching about the role of women in the church.
It's frequently said that the apostles and early Christians were simply reinforcing the cultural attitudes of their time concerning the role of women in religion and society. But Roman women were hardly known for their submissive character. As one Roman commented, "We rule the world, but our women rule us." In Roman religions, women served in the same roles as men. Female high priestesses governed many temples.
Mark Felix, a Christian lawyer, described Roman religion this way, "There is a certain place where a man may not go. Others are restricted from women. It is a crime for a slave even to be present at some religious ceremonies. Some temples are governed by a woman with one husband and others by a woman with many husbands." In fact, the leading religious figure in the ancient Mediterranean world was the oracle or prophetess of Delphi. And this oracle was always a woman.
If the role of women in the church had been simply a matter of culture and not apostolic teaching, we would expect to find that women served the same roles in both the Orthodox Church and the heretical groups. But this isn't the case. Women were allowed to teach and officiate in most heretical sects. Tertullian made this comment about the role of women in such groups.
He said, "They were bold enough to teach, to dispute, to enact exorcisms, to undertake healings, and perhaps even to baptize." The two leading figures in the Montanus sect, after the death of its founder Montanus, were both women, Maximilla and Priscilla. In fact, most of the prophecies and new teachings in the Montanus sect came from its female members. So the exclusion of women from roles of teaching and oversight in the church was definitely not a matter of just following Roman culture.
Wait a minute, you may be thinking, maybe the church didn't follow Roman culture in this matter, but it certainly was following Jewish culture. And it's true that women were excluded from the Jewish priesthood. But remember that the Jewish priesthood wasn't a product of human culture. It was divinely instituted. Furthermore, by the middle of the second century, the vast majority of Christians were Gentiles, and they most definitely did not follow Jewish culture. They didn't keep the Sabbath.
They didn't practice circumcision. They didn't follow Jewish dietary laws. They didn't observe Jewish festivals or follow any other Jewish customs that didn't specifically coincide with Christian teaching. The early church simply obeyed the apostolic teachings on the role of women in the church, the same as they obeyed all the other teachings of the apostles. And once again, they went against Roman culture rather than following it.
Feminists and modern theologians claim that the church's position on women was a product of the contempt for women held by the apostles and early church leaders. But the writings of the early Christians speak differently. For example, Mark Felix wrote, "Let everyone know that all humans are born alike, with a capacity and ability to reason and to feel, without preference of age, sex, or dignity." Clement wrote, "Let us understand that the virtue of man and woman is the same.
For if the God of both is one, the Master of both is also one." But let's come back to us. Why is it that the role of women in the church has become such an issue today? Is it because we found new Bible manuscripts that teach differently than our present Bibles? Or is it because our culture says that men and women should not perform different roles? Once again, who is unable to resist the culture of the day? Was it the early Christians? Or is it us?
Our next subheading is, "Is conservative the same as godly?" Christians today frequently pride themselves on being different from the world. But in reality, they are usually only different from a particular segment of the world. Liberal Christians think they are different from the world because they do not share the bigotry, provincialism, and narrow-mindedness that often characterizes the conservative block of our society.
But in truth, the attitudes and lifestyle of liberal Christians are little different from that of liberal non-Christians. The same principle is true of evangelicals. Because we cling to conservative American values, we tell ourselves that we're acting independently of our culture. But conservative attitudes can be just as much a part of the world as liberal ones. Haven't our attitudes on divorce, entertainment, and other issues changed in response to changes in our culture?
In fact, there is little difference spiritually between molding ourselves after the liberal segment of society or molding ourselves after the conservative segment of society. The reason is that what's considered conservative today was liberal only a few decades ago. I still remember a conversation I had in 1969 with a disc jockey who was in his mid-30s. We had a lively discussion about the issues that were prominent at the time: racial discrimination, police brutality, drugs, the Vietnam War, etc.
From the nature of his radio program, I was rather taken aback by his staunchly conservative views. So I finally remarked to him, "You're really a hardline right winger, aren't you?" He smiled and then replied, "No, I'm not even conservative. I'm actually a middle of the roader." He paused for a moment, studying my skeptical face. Then, with a grin, he added, "It's just that the road has moved." Well, at the time, I dismissed his words as simply self-serving rationalization. But his remark has stuck with me.
I've come to see exactly how right he was. The road had moved, and the road is still moving. We're only fooling ourselves when we equate conservative attitudes with godly attitudes. In reality, the 20th century church is married to the world. The attitudes, lifestyle, and issues of the world very soon become the attitudes, lifestyles, and issues of the church. Russ Taff, a popular Christian singer of the 1980s, made this candid observation about today's evangelical church. He said, "Christians go to counselors.
Christians have family problems, and Christians become alcoholics. The only difference between believers and non-believers is our simple faith in our Creator God, who loves us and helps us every day." Now, I think Russ Taff's analysis is an honest one, but I also think it's very sad that this is all that professing Christians can truthfully say.
It makes me think of the bumper stickers that say, "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven." Originally, however, Christians were very different from the society they lived in. Their lifestyle was their primary means of witnessing. Of course, not everyone lived the godly life I've described in this chapter. Nevertheless, the lifestyle I've described was the normal Christian lifestyle of the early centuries. So why were they able to live independently of their culture when we find it so difficult to do so?
What power did they have that we're lacking?