On being counter-cultural
Christianity emerged in the First Century AD during the Pax Romana. Examining how Christians related to the culture(s) of the Roman Empire might be useful in navigating our way through today’s post-Christian West. Allow me to focus for a moment on two main areas of cultural friction between Roman society and the new Christian Church.
Religiously speaking, Rome was famously tolerant. The only religion it had suppressed before Christianity was Druidism, and that only because of the issue of human sacrifice. Rome adopted and adapted religious practices and ideas from all the cultures it absorbed. Sometimes, it identified Roman and native gods with each other; sometimes, it simply imported gods and their rituals into mainstream Roman society. No one religious expression invalidated any others, people were free to believe and follow almost anything. Like most polytheistic religions, Roman religion was very syncretic. The one constant, as the empire developed, was the practice of formally venerating the genius of the emperor.
The one religion, before the emergence of Christianity, that refused to go along with this was Judaism. The Jews had an exclusive view of deity: they were strict monotheists who had no room for any other gods. They held themselves apart. But then, the Jews were also more or less a distinct ethnic group. One oddball group among the many cultures within the empire could be tolerated. “They” were never “us,” nor did they try to be. But when Christianity came along, it was seen differently. The Christians, too, had an exclusive view of their God, which defined all other gods as either fantasies or demons. They, too, held themselves apart and would not participate in the usual activities that held together Roman society. But more and more frequently, Christians were popping up among people you knew. It was all considered horrid and divisive. The demand that Christians burn a pinch of incense to the genius of the emperor went beyond what had been demanded of the Jews. Christians were seen as subversive, because most of them were now Gentiles who had seceded from the larger social consensus. They aroused fear, and that fear gave birth to hate.
As regards sexuality, pretty much anything went in the Roman world. Different peoples within the empire had different marriage customs and views on sexual practices, but nobody much interfered with anybody else. And mainstream Roman (and Greek, and Egyptian) practice was pretty much wide open. Divorce was easy, chastity a personal choice. Adultery and fornication were minor peccadilloes. Sex with slaves and prostitutes was respectable. While the Romans frowned on homosexuality, they also practiced it freely (in the Roman view, sex between men was only dishonorable for the passive partner; the one who penetrated another could penetrate either male or female and not be considered what we would call “gay” or “bisexual”). The Greeks were more tolerant of gay sex and gay relationships, though marriage was another matter; meanwhile, there were orgiastic cults of various kinds operating here and there.
Judaism rejected most of this. Divorce was possible, as was plural marriage, but both were rare. But Judaism had a sexual ethic that emphasized chastity and fidelity in marriage. Homosexuality was considered an abomination. And Judaism frowned on the kind of easy social nudity practiced by other Mediterranean peoples. Christianity adopted this view wholesale and then amped it up to ten. Indeed, most modern Christians would find the sexual attitudes of the Early Church much more strait-laced than they are used to. And while the Romans didn’t try to get the Christians to adopt their sexual practices in the same way they tried to get them to adopt their religious practices, they were seen as weird. They were also seen as “anti-family,” since it was not unusual for individuals to choose to follow Christ and live by values other than those they were brought up in. People who choose to be different, even if that difference doesn’t impinge on others’ behavior, silently critique the behavior of those others, and this provokes a reaction.
Today, an exclusive attachment to Jesus Christ, particularly as expressed in Nicene orthodoxy, is seen as weird. And when that devotion leads one to think differently from the prevailing ideological consensus, our modern society tries to push the oddballs out of the public square. It can be tough to be different. This is especially true of thinking about sexuality. If you challenge the social consensus on what is “normal,” you become a threat to those who have built that social consensus and who benefit from its validation of their behavior. There is a price to be paid for that. You can lose friends and jobs by saying the wrong thing. You can be subjected to denunciation by the electronic mob and driven from social media.
Christians want to belong and be liked, as do other people. Many of today’s Christians never thought they would not be in the mainstream of society’s thinking, and they find it difficult and scary to stand out as different. The temptation to “go along to get along” is very great. But we should remember that once upon a time, we were very different from the surrounding society. We were occasionally persecuted, violently. But in the end, Roman society turned to the Church for guidance, not the other way round. What was true and right and good then is true and right and good now. The important thing is that we recruit people to follow Christ, not a faction warring for control of society. When the Holy Spirit awakens in people the desire to follow Christ, that will lead them to challenge the assumptions they started out with, and we can help them understand how to follow new assumptions consistently. That may lead to conflict with others, and that can’t be helped. But vying for control of society without the peace and joy of God within is a counsel of despair, a rage against the stifling conformity of our time that does not satisfy. And only a deep devotion to Christ can keep one from compromising along the way with the forces that grind everyone down.
Religiously speaking, Rome was famously tolerant. The only religion it had suppressed before Christianity was Druidism, and that only because of the issue of human sacrifice. Rome adopted and adapted religious practices and ideas from all the cultures it absorbed. Sometimes, it identified Roman and native gods with each other; sometimes, it simply imported gods and their rituals into mainstream Roman society. No one religious expression invalidated any others, people were free to believe and follow almost anything. Like most polytheistic religions, Roman religion was very syncretic. The one constant, as the empire developed, was the practice of formally venerating the genius of the emperor.
The one religion, before the emergence of Christianity, that refused to go along with this was Judaism. The Jews had an exclusive view of deity: they were strict monotheists who had no room for any other gods. They held themselves apart. But then, the Jews were also more or less a distinct ethnic group. One oddball group among the many cultures within the empire could be tolerated. “They” were never “us,” nor did they try to be. But when Christianity came along, it was seen differently. The Christians, too, had an exclusive view of their God, which defined all other gods as either fantasies or demons. They, too, held themselves apart and would not participate in the usual activities that held together Roman society. But more and more frequently, Christians were popping up among people you knew. It was all considered horrid and divisive. The demand that Christians burn a pinch of incense to the genius of the emperor went beyond what had been demanded of the Jews. Christians were seen as subversive, because most of them were now Gentiles who had seceded from the larger social consensus. They aroused fear, and that fear gave birth to hate.
As regards sexuality, pretty much anything went in the Roman world. Different peoples within the empire had different marriage customs and views on sexual practices, but nobody much interfered with anybody else. And mainstream Roman (and Greek, and Egyptian) practice was pretty much wide open. Divorce was easy, chastity a personal choice. Adultery and fornication were minor peccadilloes. Sex with slaves and prostitutes was respectable. While the Romans frowned on homosexuality, they also practiced it freely (in the Roman view, sex between men was only dishonorable for the passive partner; the one who penetrated another could penetrate either male or female and not be considered what we would call “gay” or “bisexual”). The Greeks were more tolerant of gay sex and gay relationships, though marriage was another matter; meanwhile, there were orgiastic cults of various kinds operating here and there.
Judaism rejected most of this. Divorce was possible, as was plural marriage, but both were rare. But Judaism had a sexual ethic that emphasized chastity and fidelity in marriage. Homosexuality was considered an abomination. And Judaism frowned on the kind of easy social nudity practiced by other Mediterranean peoples. Christianity adopted this view wholesale and then amped it up to ten. Indeed, most modern Christians would find the sexual attitudes of the Early Church much more strait-laced than they are used to. And while the Romans didn’t try to get the Christians to adopt their sexual practices in the same way they tried to get them to adopt their religious practices, they were seen as weird. They were also seen as “anti-family,” since it was not unusual for individuals to choose to follow Christ and live by values other than those they were brought up in. People who choose to be different, even if that difference doesn’t impinge on others’ behavior, silently critique the behavior of those others, and this provokes a reaction.
Today, an exclusive attachment to Jesus Christ, particularly as expressed in Nicene orthodoxy, is seen as weird. And when that devotion leads one to think differently from the prevailing ideological consensus, our modern society tries to push the oddballs out of the public square. It can be tough to be different. This is especially true of thinking about sexuality. If you challenge the social consensus on what is “normal,” you become a threat to those who have built that social consensus and who benefit from its validation of their behavior. There is a price to be paid for that. You can lose friends and jobs by saying the wrong thing. You can be subjected to denunciation by the electronic mob and driven from social media.
Christians want to belong and be liked, as do other people. Many of today’s Christians never thought they would not be in the mainstream of society’s thinking, and they find it difficult and scary to stand out as different. The temptation to “go along to get along” is very great. But we should remember that once upon a time, we were very different from the surrounding society. We were occasionally persecuted, violently. But in the end, Roman society turned to the Church for guidance, not the other way round. What was true and right and good then is true and right and good now. The important thing is that we recruit people to follow Christ, not a faction warring for control of society. When the Holy Spirit awakens in people the desire to follow Christ, that will lead them to challenge the assumptions they started out with, and we can help them understand how to follow new assumptions consistently. That may lead to conflict with others, and that can’t be helped. But vying for control of society without the peace and joy of God within is a counsel of despair, a rage against the stifling conformity of our time that does not satisfy. And only a deep devotion to Christ can keep one from compromising along the way with the forces that grind everyone down.