The Body and Society

Body and SocietyWhen considering the past, especially the ancient past, I sometimes think we imagine the people as one large group—or just a few large groups, divided by region. It definitely feels that way to me when we talk about “the early church” and what they believed. It doesn’t take a lot of digging to know that the earliest Christians disagreed about many things. Indeed, much of the writing we have from the early church involves people working out disagreements and figuring out what the church’s teaching should and would be. It was a complicated process, and that complexity existed even in areas of thought where basic teachings about behavior were, on the surface, fairly similar. That’s definitely the case when it comes to the church’s stance on sexual abstinence, which is the subject of this book by Peter S. Brown, first published in 1988.

The Body and Society focuses on the church of the first through fourth centuries. We meet ascetics who went into the desert, priests living in the cities, and women of wealth and influence, albeit influence limited by their sex. Covering this much ground is a massive undertaking, even when focused on only one aspect of their lives and thought. Brown delves into original texts from the period, all clearly footnoted, to get at what church leaders of the day believed and thought.

I read this book one chapter at a time, over the course of several weeks, and the amount of information was overwhelming. It was illuminating, but there was too much here for me to retain. Even now as I try to write I’m having trouble figuring out what to share with you. Part of my problem is that there were so many fascinating bits of information, but to share that one item would give it undue importance. If I talk about the adoration of Thecla, then you’ll get the idea that virginity was the most important thing for women of that time–and it was in some places and at some times. But widows who had inherited great wealth were also influential as patrons of the church. And even when virginity was seen as the ideal for women, not all virgins were like Thecla, boldly vowing to remain chaste. Some were committed to the church by their families and given little choice in the matter. But some of those same women became powerful forces, sometimes even acting as confidantes and guides to Christian men.

Even though it appears that sexual renunciation as an ideal came about early in the church’s history, the nature of that renunciation was not necessarily what we think of today when we imagine young Roman Catholic men entering the priesthood or young women joining convents. Early on, many of those Christians who committed to sexual abstinence were older, often widows and widowers who decided not to marry again but to commit themselves to the church. So it wasn’t necessarily virginity, but continence that was prized. And the reasons for prizing continence varied. Origen saw the rejection of sex as an assertion of freedom from social bonds. Clement, too, wrote of freedom, but he stressed freedom from passions–and such freedom could also exist between married people who engaged in sex for the begetting of children.

One of the ideas I found particularly fascinating was Gregory of Nyssa’s belief that humanity’s separation into male and female was not part of God’s original design. The division, and the opportunity for sexual reproduction that comes with it, was given by God as a “merciful afterthought” after Adam’s fall to stem the tide of death. I’m not sure what I think of this idea, but I think it does show that the early church was filled with creative thinkers! It’s ideas like this that make early Christian thought endlessly fascinating to me. There’s a feeling that everyone’s still trying to figure things out, and I love that. Even though I don’t believe sexual renunciation is necessary or even particularly beneficial, I could appreciate the way the people Brown writes about were grappling with the question.

This book didn’t really give me new insights into the church’s view of sex and sexuality. There are no great bombshells here. What’s interesting is seeing how views evolved and developed, not always in a straight line. I studied enough church history to have a general familiarity with many of the names and movements Brown discusses, although I was glad to learn more about women like Macrina, Perpetua, and Paula, who were previously no more than names to me, if even that. I’m not sure how well someone entirely new to church history would fare with this. Even with my background, I found the deluge of information to be too much. With books like this, I often feel that I’m reading to get a general idea of what the issues are, so that I’ll know what to look up later when I have a specific question in mind. So I’ll keep this around as a reference, even as I feel specific facts slipping from my mind.

About these ads
This entry was posted in History, Nonfiction, Religion. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to The Body and Society

  1. He has a great reputation in late antique studies. I’ve only read his more general book, The World of Late Antiquity (which I highly recommend). I think you’re pretty game to tackle this one. Re asceticism, I sometimes suspect I could do with a little bit more of it in my daily life. ;-)

    • Teresa says:

      I’ve gathered that this book is considered a classic in the field, and I’m sure a more general work by him would be interesting as well, if equally overwhelming. I was really interested in the topic, which made it less daunting.

  2. Iris says:

    I just discussed this idea of your first paragraph in class about a week ago. The notion that there are dividable groups of opposition in the early church of the first few centuries, and whether or not there might not have been other opinions, that did not entirely fit with these groups? Someone commented that it is almost a sociological law that positions “in the middle” or “in the margins” would exist, but that in the heights of conflict they are either forgotten or forced to choose between one of the positions and thus become parts of the larger groups. I’m not sure if I agree. I don’t particularly like suggested laws of the kind for historical settings, knowing how we like to think of our own time as somehow more “complicated” or “inidivual”, but I found it an interesting idea nonetheless.

    Sorry to go on about that as I know your post wasn’t about it necessarily.

    I have yet to read a whole book by Peter Brown. I have always wanted to, seeing as he is such a lauded scholar. But then, I know very little about the early centuries. And right now I cannot “waste time” (in the scholarly sense that any non-fiction book should probably be read on my actual research topic) on another period. (No, I do not think it would actually be wasting time!). Someday though…

    • Teresa says:

      My understanding is that with the early church so many of the dissenting views got suppressed that even though we know there were other views, we mostly have writing about those views from the people eventually deemed orthodox, so we can’t be sure how accurate their depictions are. What was fascinating about this book, though, is that it shows people generally perceived today as being orthodox whose views didn’t line up with each other. A lot of the time, they were talking to their specific audiences, and those audiences’ needs and backgrounds varied, so the teachings varied as well. I loved seeing the diversity of thought!

      And I know what you mean about wasting time. We can only focus on so many things at once, so we have to set aside some worthwhile pursuits.

      • russell1200 says:

        Suppress, until you get a few hundred years on, is a popular, but dubious description of what is going on. The Jews and Christians in their various groupings were being sporadically “suppressed” by various authorities who viewed them to be a problem. What today are viewed as the fringe (Marcion for example) often did very well, but seem to have flamed out on their own. As time went on a handful of groups congealed and survived. Two of these groups spread through the Roman Empire, and managed to avoid conquest by non-Christian groups.

        But what was the fringe and what was orthodox in 250 A.D. is a somewhat retrospective reading of history.

      • Iris says:

        I would tend to agree with your view on the reasons why we do not know about every stance back then, which I would say also has to do with the power of (some) of the parties involved, be it political or otherwise.
        I generally love a historical account of religion that shows the diversity of thought. I don’t know why these appeal so particularly, but I think it has to do with the fact that with diversity comes the need to acknowledge that it is rather to discard ALL religion as “backward” or whichever word you want to put there. It’s often too easily dismissed nowadays, I think. Or reduced to something else.

      • Teresa says:

        On reflection, I can certainly see that chalking it all up to suppression would be an oversimplification, and not correct in many cases. A variety of things could cause certain ideas to die out–and if they peter out, for whatever reason, there might not enough interest in their writings for them to be preserved.

        And that’s an excellent point about orthodox vs. fringe. It’s something my historical theology professor was always careful to remind us about.

  3. Jenny says:

    Oh interesting! The diversity of thought in the church is one of the things that has always really fascinated me, both in the olden times and now. I like to see all the different ideas that could have, but did not, become what we consider orthodox today.

    • Teresa says:

      It’s interesting to think about, isn’t it? When it comes to the big stuff, I mostly think that good choices were made, but that’s because I’ve been embedded in it my whole life! It’s fascinating to read about it all getting hashed out.

Leave your comment here, and feel free to respond to others' comments. We enjoy a lively conversation!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s