Available via license: CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
75
CELIBACY AS SOCIAL COUNTER-CONDUCT PRACTICE IN
EARLY CHURCH
Perdian Tumanan
Ph.D. Student in Theology and Ethics, Villanova University, PA, USA
Email: ptumanan@villanova.edu
Submit: 3 November 2021 Revised: 25 May 2022 Accepted: 6 October 2022
Abstract
This paper argues that the concept of sexual abstinence in early Christianity was not
based on biblical proof-texting, but rather resulted from constructive theological efforts
in response to the socio-political reality of the time and the early Christians’ aspirations
towards women and the marginalized. By exploring the discourse surrounding marriage
and sexuality in the Greco-Roman world and its impact on early Christianity, this paper
highlights how the teaching on sexual abstinence challenged the imperial philosophy of
desire and control. The paper posits that celibacy and sexual abstinence served as a
social counter-conduct practice in response to the little appreciation for women’s
bodies and the marginalized. In short, the teaching of Christian chastity addressed the
elitism that pervasive in Greco-Roman philosophy of marriage and sexuality. Ultimately,
the debate about celibacy in early Christianity was about the nature of human solidarity.
Keywords: celibacy, marriage, sexuality, early church, counter-conduct practice
INTRODUCTION
There is little evidence to suggest that the idea of sexual abstinence in early
Christianity is solely based on Jesus’ teachings.
1
Being Jewish, Jesus would have been
aware that marriage is considered the highest calling for every man in Judaism. This
implies that a life of celibacy is not common among Jewish men.
2
Immanuel Jakobovits,
in his entry on celibacy in Encyclopaedia Judaica, confirms this by stating, “The
deliberate renunciation of marriage is all but completely alien to Judaism.”
3
1
Historian, Merry Wiesner-Hanks, explains that Jesus talked rarely about sex and that, “his
recorded words are contradictory (Merry E. Wiesner, Christianity and Sexuality in The Early Modern
World: Regulating Desire, Reforming Practice, 2nd ed., Christianity and Society in the Modern World
[London: Routledge, 2010], 26).
2
Michael Satlow highlights the contrasting views on sex and marriage between Palestinian Jews
and Babylonian Jews. Babylonian rabbis viewed sex as inherently sinful, and marriage as a means to
control sexual desire. This perspective may have contributed to the emphasis on celibacy. However, the
first century Palestinian rabbis had a different perspective. Influenced by Hellenism and Roman culture,
they saw marriage as the foundation for, ““creation of household (oikos), that would bring social
respectability for man” (Michael Satlow, Jewish Marriage in Antiquity [Princeton and Oxford: Princeton
University Press, 2001], xvi).
3
Immanuel Jakobovits, “Celibacy,” in Encyclopaedia Judaica, ed. Michael Berenbaum and Fred
Skolnik (Detroit, MI: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007), Gale eBooks,
http://link.gale.com/apps/doc/CX2587504094/GVRL?u=vill_main&sid=zotero&xid=806615cd.
QUAERENS: Journal of Theology and Christianity Studies
Vol.4, No.1, (June 2022): 75-87
DOI: 10.46362/quaerens.v4i2.81
76 Celibacy as Social Counter-Conduct Practice in Early Church…Perdian
Furthermore, Dale Martin challenges one of the most frequently cited reasons for
supporting sexual abstinence—Jesus’ singleness. While his conclusion on Jesus’
sexuality is highly contested, his insightful analysis questions the assumption that Jesus
was single, which is largely based on traditional Christian historical imagination. Martin
argues that, while there is no text in the Gospels that proves Jesus was married, there is
also no explicit statement that Jesus was single.
4
Even if Jesus was single, his singleness
would have been very unusual even bizarre for someone of his time. The practice of
sexual abstinence that was observed by some small sectarian groups at that time
usually went hand in hand with other forms of obedience, such as “their concern about
purity and temple, fasting, strict Sabbath observance, and obedience to a strictly
interpreted Torah.”
5
However, these were not necessarily followed by early Jesus’
disciples. Another group that practiced sexual abstinence also avoided wine and grape
products. In contrast, the Gospels clearly state that Jesus did not refuse them (Matt.
9:11; Luke 5:29-30; 7:34).
6
He even turned water into wine! (John 2:1-11). In short,
Jesus did not conform to any form or norm of celibacy that existed at that time. Martin
concludes that even if Jesus practiced sexual abstinence, “he was a queer one.”
7
This paper aims to argue that the teachings on celibacy and sexual abstinence in
the early Church were not based on simple biblical proof-texting. Instead, they were a
result of constructive theological efforts that responded to the socio-political reality of
the time and the early Christians’ aspirations towards love, hope, and humanity. The
excitement of future glorification through Jesus’ resurrection, the expectation of Jesus’
immediate parousia, and the trauma, persecution, and torture that they faced, all played
a significant role in shaping their understanding of the body, sexuality, and marriage.
8
Kiddushin 29b (Talmud) states, “If one is twenty years old and has not yet married a woman, all of his
days will be in a state of sin concerning sexual matters. One who does not marry in his youth will become
accustomed to thoughts of sexual matters, and the habit will remain with him the rest of his life”
(“Kiddushin 29b,” accessed September 25, 2020, https://www.sefaria.org/Kiddushin.29b).
4
Dale Martin, Sex and Single Savior: Gender and Sexuality in Biblical Interpretation (Louisville and
London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006), 96–97.
5
Martin, 97.
6
Martin, 97.
7
Martin, 97.
8
As Elizabeth Castelli aptly stated, “This unfolding ideology of virginity is highly complex,
intertwining theological arguments, current philosophical ideas, and a collection of contemporary
rhetorical themes to produce a tightly woven image of virginity as the ideal of Christian life” (Elizabeth A.
Castelli, “Virginity and Its Meaning for Women’s Sexuality in Early Christianity,” Journal of Feminist
Studies in Religion 2, no. 1 [Spring 1986]: 67–68).
QUAERENS: Journal of Theology and Christianity Studies, Vol.4, No.2, December 2022 77
This paper is divided into three main sections. In the first section, I will explore
the discourse surrounding marriage and sexuality in the Greco-Roman world. In the
second section, I will analyze the impact of the socio-political context of the Graeco-
Roman empire and its discourse on sexuality and marriage on Christian teaching. Lastly,
in the third section, I will discuss the occurrence of the teaching on sexual abstinence
that challenged the imperial philosophy of desire and control.
DISCUSSION
Marriage, Sexual Regulation, and Continuity of Population in Greco-Roman World
There are at least two similarities between the early Church’s view on sexuality
and that of Greco-Roman culture. First, Greco-Roman culture and Church did not
perceived sexuality as something inherently bad. Second, sexuality was considered
important, particularly in relation to procreation.
9
David G. Hunter corroborates this
paradigm by stating that in Greco-Roman culture, marriage was seen as a “civic duty.”
10
In this regard, sexuality was a matter of public discourse rather than a personal issue.
Historian Peter Brown provides a compelling explanation for why sexuality and
marriage were such critical topics in public discourse during this time. Due to the high
mortality rate in ancient civilizations, including the Greco-Roman world, citizens had a
real and pressing need to procreate in order to ensure the continuation of the
population. Brown emphasizes this urgency by stating that “Citizens of the Roman
Empire at its height, in the second century A. D., were born into the world with an
average life expectancy of less than twenty-five years. Death fell savagely the young.
Those who survived childhood remained at risk.”
11
Therefore, it is not surprising that
the discussion of sexuality is primarily linked to the topics of marriage and procreation.
The threat to the continuity of the population was a significant problem in ancient
times. Brown highlights the urgency of the situation by stating, “Unexacting in so many
ways in sexual matters, the ancient city expected its citizens to expend a requisite
9
In Greek classic texts, marriage and sexual acts were inseparable and the intention is for
procreation (Michel Foucault and Robert Hurley, The Care of The Self, vol. 3, The History of Sexuality [New
York: Pantheon Books, 1986], 166–67).
10
David G. Hunter, ed., Marriage and Sexuality in Early Christianity, Ad Fontes: Early Christian
Sources (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2018), 11.
11
Peter Brown, The Body and Society: Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity,
Lectures on The History of Religions; (Columbia University Press, 1988), 6.
78 Celibacy as Social Counter-Conduct Practice in Early Church…Perdian
proportion of their energy begetting and rearing legitimate children to replace the
dead.”
12
At its most extreme point, the human body could be considered the property of
the empire for the purpose of reproducing new human beings. According to Hunter,
those who neglected these laws could be subject to financial penalties. He explains that
men between the ages of twenty-five and sixty who did not marry, and women between
the ages of twenty and fifty who did not marry, were subject to these penalties. In
addition, widows were required to remarry within two to three years, and divorcees
within eighteen months. Finally, inheritance restrictions were imposed on married
couples who were childless.
13
It is possible that the great population census decreed by
Augustus in Luke 2:2 was not only for economic purposes, but also to assess the
effectiveness of these laws, which had been passed several years earlier.
Given the arduous reality of low life expectancy, it is difficult to view sexual
abstinence or celibacy as legal and desirable. In fact, sexual continence was sometimes
viewed as an anti-imperial decision that could put one’s life in danger.
14
Additionally,
the concept of chastity was rooted in a sexist paradigm. During that time, medical
science held that only males possessed the “vital spirit” or heat necessary for the
production of life, while women were considered “failed males.”
15
It is therefore not
surprising that the practice of virginity was limited to a select few women due to
religious duty and responsibility. However, it is essential to note that the decision to live
a chaste life was not made out of self-autonomy, and often lacked consciousness and
personal willingness. Brown says, “The chastity of many virgin priestesses was not a
matter of free choice for them. No heroic freedom of the individual will be made plain by
their decision not to marry.”
16
Early Christian Teachings on Marriage and Sexuality
Similar to Greco-Roman culture, early Christian teachings also did not consider
sex as something inherently wrong. In fact, in 1 Corinthians 7, Paul bluntly rejects the
12
Brown, 6.
13
Hunter mentions three laws that bind Roman citizens to marriage and reproduction, lex Iulia de
maritandis ordinibus (18 BCE), lex Iulia de adulteriis (18 BCE), and lex Papia-Poppaea (9 BCE) (Hunter,
Marriage and Sexuality in Early Christianity, 10).
14
Brown, The Body and Society, 6.
15
Brown, 9–10.
16
Brown, 8.
QUAERENS: Journal of Theology and Christianity Studies, Vol.4, No.2, December 2022 79
extreme ascetic group among the Corinthian Church whose motto was written in verse
1: “It is well for a man not to touch a woman.” Although Paul personally seemed to
prefer a chaste life and endorsed it, he never prohibited church members from marrying
and having their own partners. He even forbade those who were already married from
abandoning their partners in favor of celibacy. Hunter writes, “Abstention from sex
should occur only by mutual consent for the sake of prayer and only for a limited
time.”
17
Paul’s main reason for choosing a life of celibacy was not because it was godlier
than married life, but rather because of his understanding of the imminent parousia and
how married life could bring an unnecessary burden.
18
This means that his reason was
more practical than theological, and I agree with Hunter on this point.
Considering this earliest writing about marriage and sexuality in the early
Christianity by Paul—believed to have been written in 53-54 CE—it is difficult to
conclude that the practice of celibacy is simply derived from Scripture, Jesus, or Paul.
The New Testament does not reject marriage and sexual relationships. This is why
Elisabeth A. Clark, in her book on Asceticism in Early Christianity, boldly concludes that
supporters of ascetic life faced a dilemma when attempting to base their teachings on
Scripture, as Scripture appears to be more supportive of married life. She states:
Reading Renunciation explores the exegetical problem confronting early
Christian ascetic writers who wished to ground their renunciatory program in
the Bible. Their “problem” arose because the Bible only sporadically supported
their agenda; many verses appeared rather to assume that marriage and
reproduction were the norms for godly living. To read the Bible as
wholeheartedly endorsing their ascetic program challenged the Fathers’
interpretive ingenuity as well as their comprehensive knowledge of Scripture.
19
Hunter also provides crucial insights into how Greco-Roman moralists and
philosophers influenced Christian ideas about marriage in the second century.
20
Prior to
this period, marriage was mostly viewed as a civil obligation. However, in the second
century, marriage became more individualized, with concepts such as “responsibility,”
“respect,” “marriage as friendship,” “companionship,” “mutual affection,” and “harmony”
17
Hunter, Marriage and Sexuality in Early Christianity, 6.
18
Hunter, 6–7.
19
Elizabeth A. Clark, Reading Renunciation: Asceticism and Scripture in Early Christianity
(Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1999), 3.
20
Hunter, Marriage and Sexuality in Early Christianity, 12–13.
80 Celibacy as Social Counter-Conduct Practice in Early Church…Perdian
being introduced as integral components of a good marriage.
21
Christian writers and
leaders of that time did not view these teachings as contradictory to Scripture; in fact,
they found them to be in line with it. The delay of the parousia may have been the
primary reason for Christian leaders to contemplate the meaning and values of
Christian marriage as a foundation for building a sustainable Christian family.
Later on, this emphasis on marital and sexual ethics became a crucial point that
Christian apologists such as Aristides, Justin Martyr, and Athenagoras used to defend
Christianity against persecution. As many Roman households converted to Christianity,
these apologists argued that Christian marital and familial values were compatible with
Greco-Roman culture.
22
They attempted to convince the Roman authorities that
Christianity was not an enemy of the Roman Empire but “had positive intellectual and
moral benefits to offer.”
23
In this regard, marriage—and not the life of celibacy—became
a crucial bridge to connect two separate worldviews and ways of life. Hunter
summarizes this well when he says:
Most of the later New Testament writings continued Paul’s resistance to the
demands of ascetic Christians for sexual renunciation. They also developed
further his desire to preserve the established structures of society, marriage
among them. Written in an ageless anxious about the end of time and more
concerned to present a good appearance to non- Christian society, documents
from the later years of the first century tended to construct a bridge between the
teachings of Jesus and Paul, on the one side, and the structures and values of
Greco-Roman society, on the other.
24
Given the hostile environment in which Christianity emerged, promoting sexual
abstinence as a way of life would have been counterproductive and even harmful to the
survival of the religion. Thus, it can be concluded that even in the second century,
teaching on virginity and celibacy was not the dominant principle in Christian discourse
on sexuality.
25
As discussed earlier, the body and sexuality, particularly women’s bodies, were
highly politicized in Greco-Roman times. The Roman Empire’s urgent need to address
21
Brown, The Body and Society, 12.
22
Hunter, Marriage and Sexuality in Early Christianity, 14.
23
Hunter, 13.
24
Hunter, 7.
25
In his article, Richard Price mentions the attack on marriage from an extreme pro-celibacy
teaching among Christians called Encratism, which has its roots and history traced back to the Corinthian
church. Their main teaching was that "all Christians, even if they were married, should renounce sex at
baptism." However, this teaching was generally rejected by the Church in the second century (Richard
Price, “Celibacy and Free Love in Early Christianity,” Theology & Sexuality 12, no. 2 [2006]: 122–24).
QUAERENS: Journal of Theology and Christianity Studies, Vol.4, No.2, December 2022 81
the population decline led to the endorsement of marriage for reproduction, with legal
consequences that penalized male bachelors and highly rewarded marriage.
26
The main
aim is to maintain the stability of the empire’s population.
27
Given this political context, it would have been almost impossible for the early
Church—a small and controversial sect of Judaism—to promote celibacy. According to
New Testament scholar Sheila McGinn, the first Christians, up to the second generation,
lived relatively peaceful and secure lives.
28
While there were sporadic persecutions, they
were not systemic or intentional.
29
Another scholar, Candida Moss, doubts that the
Roman emperors were specifically targeting Christians. She quotes G. E. M. De Ste. Croix
who notes that there was no general persecution by the Roman government until the
Decian persecution in 250 CE, and that between 64 and 250 CE there were only isolated
and local persecutions. Even if the total number of victims may have been considerable,
most individual outbreaks were likely brief.
30
In light of this reality, I believe that Paul’s
positive impression of the Roman Empire in Romans 13 and his endorsement that the
Church should subject themselves to the government cannot be separated from the
political context of the time. Suggesting celibacy would have contradicted the Apostle’s
own approval and put Christians in a dangerous position.
However, the question remains: if the discourse surrounding sexual abstinence
and a life of celibacy did not originate directly from Scripture or the first two centuries
of Christianity, where did it come from? What is the primary motivation behind this
teaching? And why did it eventually become a long-standing perception, particularly
within the Catholic Church, that marriage is inferior to celibacy?
31
To answer these
questions, we must identify a crucial feature that distinguishes Christian views on
sexuality from those of the Greco-Roman world: the concept of desire or pleasure.
Desire, Power and the Origin of Christian Chastity
26
Brown, The Body and Society, 6.
27
Brown, 6.
28
Sheila E. McGinn, The Jesus Movement and the World of the Early Church (Winona, Minnesota:
Anselm Academic, 2014), 186.
29
Bryan M. Litfin, Early Christian Martyr Stories: An Evangelical Introduction with New Translations
(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2014), 3.
30
Candida R. Moss, Ancient Christian Martyrdom: Diverse Practices, Theologies, and Traditions (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 2012), 9.
31
Price, “Celibacy and Free Love in Early Christianity,” 122.
82 Celibacy as Social Counter-Conduct Practice in Early Church…Perdian
In his later works on the genealogy of sexuality, specifically books 2, 3, and 4,
Michel Foucault attempts to investigate human subjectivity and the experience of
sexuality.
32
Inevitably, this exploration leads him to the topic of desire. In Volume 2 of
his book series, The Use of Pleasure, Foucault discovers that desire is constitutive and
central to discussions of sexuality, whether in traditional cultures or within the
Christian tradition, after studying individuals as sexual subjects and their experiences.
33
To me, Foucault’s research also provides a crucial perspective to understand the
Church’s emphasis on celibacy.
Foucault describes the Greco-Roman conception of sexual desire or pleasure
using the term aphrodisia, which encompasses various meanings, including “pleasures
of love,” “sexual relations,” “carnal acts,” and “sensual pleasures.”
34
However, this
concept of aphrodisia is challenging to translate accurately. Foucault then identifies
three approaches that Greco-Roman philosophers use to address sexual ethics or issues
of aphrodisia: the notion of use (chrēsis), mastery (enkrateia), and moderation
(sōphrosynē).
35
For the purpose of this discussion, I will focus on the concept of mastery,
or enkrateia.
According to Foucault, Greek philosophers often used enkrateia and sōphrosynē
interchangeably.
36
However, Aristotle later distinguished between them, defining
sōphrosynē as the ability to choose and apply true principles, while enkrateia refers to
an “active form of self-mastery,” particularly in the “area of desires and pleasures.”
37
It
can be said, then, that sōphrosynē is the character produced by enkrateia. Enkrateia
itself has several sub-meanings, including struggle, resistance, and combat.
38
The
consequence of enkrateia is that one can only become ethical if one has a “combative
attitude toward pleasures.”
39
In this regard, pleasure is not necessarily an enemy but
something that should be controlled or mastered.
40
This is due to Platonic dualism,
32
Daniele Lorenzini, “The Emergence of Desire; Notes Toward a Political History of the Will,” The
University of Chicago Press Journals 45, no. 2 (Winter 2019): 449.
33
Michel Foucault, The Use of Pleasure, trans. Robert Hurley, vol. 2, The History of Sexuality (New
York: Vintage Books, 1985), 5.
34
Foucault, 2:35.
35
Foucault, 2:36.
36
Foucault, 2:63–64.
37
Foucault, 2:64–65.
38
Foucault, 2:65.
39
Foucault, 2:66.
40
Foucault, 2:70.
QUAERENS: Journal of Theology and Christianity Studies, Vol.4, No.2, December 2022 83
which posits that an individual can have both “stronger” and “weaker” selves.
41
Greek
philosophy cannot rid itself of desire since it is an integral part of the self. Foucault
quotes an important statement from Socrates, which reinforces this view: “It is not
abstinence from pleasures that is best, but mastery over them without ever being
worsted.”
42
Unlike Christian celibacy ethics, which emphasizes “elucidation-
renunciation,” Greek ethics focuses on “domination-submission.”
43
Interestingly, Foucault also mentions that it is common for Plato to associate the
human body’s challenge with pleasure with the reality of the political structure. Plato
suggests that “If the individual is like the city, the same structure must prevail in him.”
He argues that a person will become self-indulgent when they lack the power structure,
the arche, that would allow them to defeat and rule over (kratein) the inferior powers.
In the absence of such a structure, “his soul must be full of servitude and lack freedom,”
and the soul’s “best parts” will be enslaved while “a small part, the most wicked and
mad, is master.”
44
To overcome this, one needs to engage in a specific set of training called askēsis.
Later on, this principle became essential for those who wanted to engage in politics.
45
In
this regard, the body and society are inseparable and tightly entangled. The victory over
sexual desire also means a conquest over the city, making desire constitutive in the
formation of power and political structure.
46
However, Brown provides additional critical information on this notion of body,
control, and politics. The high mortality rate at the time meant that only the elite
families had the privilege and opportunity to practice askēsis and become the leaders of
41
Foucault, 2:68.
42
Foucault, 2:70.
43
Foucault, 2:70.
44
Foucault, 2:71.
45
Foucault, 2:73.
46
This statement clearly reminds us of the connection that Foucault made between sexuality and
power in his first book on the history of sexuality. His rejection of the repressive hypothesis of the
eighteenth-century discourse on sexuality is precisely because of this reason. For Foucault, sexuality
becomes the domain of power not because of its innate nature, which we falsely describe as a “stubborn
drive, by nature alien and of necessity disobedient to a power which exhausts itself trying to subdue it
and often fails to control it entirely” (Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality: An Introduction, trans.
Robert Hurley, vol. 1 [New York: Vintage Books, 1978], 103). This understanding of power becomes
possible because of the notion of desire. In his analysis of the relationship between power and sex,
Foucault mentions that power and desire are two things that cannot be separated. He argues that “Where
there is desire, the power relation is already present” (Foucault, 1:81).
84 Celibacy as Social Counter-Conduct Practice in Early Church…Perdian
the cities.
47
Control over the body thus denoted elitism, making it impossible for
marginalized groups to even have control over their bodies.
Despite many theories attempting to explain the origins of Christian chastity, I
believe the reaction to the socio-political reality of the time is the most compelling
explanation. According to Brown, Christian leaders followed the philosophers in
condemning the elites’ (slave owners) habit of showing off the “the anomaly of the
Roman ‘double standard,’ that punished the wife for the adultery while accepting
unfaithfulness in a husband.”
48
This cannot be separated from the little appreciation for
women’s bodies as mere reproduction machines for the empire.
In this regard, Christian virginity spoke loudly to the Roman people. As Peter
Brown notes, “It was left to Christian treatises on virginity to speak in public on the
physical state of the married woman—on their danger in childbirth, on the pain in their
breasts during suckling, on their exposure to children’s infections, on the terrible shame
of infertility, and on the humiliation of being replaced by servants in their husbands’
affections.”
49
Brown argues that “the debate about virginity [in early Christianity] . . .
was in large part a debate about the nature of human solidarity.”
50
Daniele Lorenzini
agrees with Brown’s approach, arguing that virginity is not a simple dogmatic product
but is born out of the real struggle of life and death. According to Lorenzini, “Indeed, by
the fourth century, to uphold virginity ‘was to commit oneself, by implication, to a
different image of the grounds of cohesion of society,’ a society that was founded on
marriage and procreation.”
51
Lorenzini calls the endorsement of virginity a social
counter-conduct that seeks to “demystify or denaturalize the vision of society.”
52
This is why Christian leaders were pessimistic about the understanding of
“mastery of desire” taught by philosophers and moralists. Brown describes the figures
favored by the moralists as follows:
What might appear at first sight as tolerance reveals, in fact, the
comprehensiveness of the code adopted by the elites. They lay across the whole
body of the public man. Wealthy, perpetually in the public gaze, exercising the
power of life and limb over others, and close to figures who could exercise such
47
Brown, The Body and Society, 9.
48
Brown, 23.
49
Brown, 25.
50
Lorenzini, “The Emergence of Desire; Notes Toward a Political History of the Will,” 458.
51
Lorenzini, 458.
52
Lorenzini, 458.
QUAERENS: Journal of Theology and Christianity Studies, Vol.4, No.2, December 2022 85
control over themselves, the civic notable anger, irrational cruelty, the exuberant
and menacing physicality of the greedy eater, and the erratic savagery of the
tippler subjects far more worthy of concern than was the soft passion of desire.
53
It is not surprising that Church fathers, such as Clement of Alexandria, rejected
the notion of controlling desire and declared that it only contributes to society’s
suffering. In short, the Christian ideal is not to experience desire at all.
54
Brown adds
that sexual renunciation is the only way for Christians to transform the body and break
it with the discreet discipline of the ancient city.
55
While Greco-Roman culture declares that victory over their bodies and cities can
be gained by controlling sexual desire and pleasure, for Christians, liberation of the
body is achieved by renouncing all sexual activity and joining in Christ’s victory.
56
By
renouncing marriage and sex, Christians hope for an “end to the huge fabric of
organized society” that produces the suffering of the marginalized.
57
These constructive
theological efforts are later reflected in the writings of Gregory Nyssa’s “On Virginity,”
where he critiques the ongoing life, death, and suffering involved in marriage and
argues that virginity is the original condition of the human being.
58
CONCLUSION
Although sexual abstinence is a common practice in many religions, it’s
important to differentiate between their underlying motivations and cultural objectives.
Our discussion highlights the Christian concept of celibacy, which was not simply a
product of biblical study, but a complex theological construction born out of a specific
socio-political context. It’s worth noting that the significant shift in Church teaching
around sexuality, moving from a focus on marriage to an emphasis on sexual abstinence,
aligns with Foucault’s understanding of power and sexuality. According to Foucault,
power operates through an ongoing process of struggle and confrontation that
transforms, strengthens, or even reverses prevailing norms and values. Therefore, we
can conclude that the development of celibacy teaching in Christianity must have
undergone a similar internal process of transformation and negotiation.
53
Brown, The Body and Society, 30–31.
54
Brown, 31.
55
Brown, 31.
56
Brown, 32.
57
Brown, 32.
58
Elizabeth A. Clark, Women in the Early Church (Liturgical Press, 2017), 57.
86 Celibacy as Social Counter-Conduct Practice in Early Church…Perdian
REFERENCE
A. Clark, Elizabeth. Reading Renunciation: Asceticism and Scripture in Early Christianity.
Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1999.
Brown, Peter. The Body and Society: Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early
Christianity. Lectures on The History of Religions; Columbia University Press,
1988.
Castelli, Elizabeth A. “Virginity and Its Meaning for Women’s Sexuality in Early
Christianity.” Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 2, no. 1 (Spring 1986).
Clark, Elizabeth A. Women in the Early Church. Liturgical Press, 2017.
E. McGinn, Sheila. The Jesus Movement and the World of the Early Church. Winona,
Minnesota: Anselm Academic, 2014.
Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality: An Introduction. Translated by Robert Hurley.
Vol. 1. New York: Vintage Books, 1978.
———. The Use of Pleasure: Translated by Robert Hurley. Vol. 2. The History of
Sexuality. New York: Vintage Books, 1985.
Foucault, Michel, and Robert Hurley. The Care of The Self. Vol. 3. The History of Sexuality.
New York: Pantheon Books, 1986.
Hunter, David G., ed. Marriage and Sexuality in Early Christianity. Ad Fontes: Early
Christian Sources. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2018.
Jakobovits, Immanuel. “Celibacy.” In Encyclopedia Judaica, edited by Michael Berenbaum
and Fred Skolnik, 4:537. Detroit, MI: Macmillan Reference USA, 2007. Gale
eBooks.
http://link.gale.com/apps/doc/CX2587504094/GVRL?u=vill_main&sid=zotero&
xid=806615cd.
“Kiddushin 29b.” Accessed September 25, 2020.
https://www.sefaria.org/Kiddushin.29b.
Litfin, Bryan M. Early Christian Martyr Stories: An Evangelical Introduction with New
Translations. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2014.
Lorenzini, Daniele. “The Emergence of Desire; Notes Toward a Political History of the
Will.” The University of Chicago Press Journals 45, no. 2 (Winter 2019).
Martin, Dale. Sex and Single Savior: Gender and Sexuality in Biblical Interpretation.
Louisville and London: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006.
QUAERENS: Journal of Theology and Christianity Studies, Vol.4, No.2, December 2022 87
Moss, Candida R. Ancient Christian Martyrdom: Diverse Practices, Theologies, and
Traditions. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2012.
Price, Richard. “Celibacy and Free Love in Early Christianity.” Theology & Sexuality 12,
no. 2 (2006).
Satlow, Michael. Jewish Marriage in Antiquity. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton
University Press, 2001.
Wiesner, Merry E. Christianity and Sexuality in The Early Modern World: Regulating
Desire, Reforming Practice. 2nd ed. Christianity and Society in the Modern World.
London: Routledge, 2010.
