Christian woman in the early church - Did they marry pagans?

[Manwë Súlimo]

I've always been of the opinion that Christians of the early church only married within the faith, per the instructions of Jesus that we should not be "unequally yoked". However, Rodney Stark in his book "The Rise of Christianity" has presented a plausible defense to the theory that not only did they marry pagans, they did this a lot.

After setting out a case that the early church had an overabundance of marriageable woman (partly because Christianity forbade infanticide of unwanted female babies, the progressive nature of Christianity in its treatment towards woman [widows were looked after in contrast to pagan widows who were forced into remarriage], the refusal to allow incest, extramarital affairs, and divorce without cause, the opportunity for woman to hold respected offices in the church, and so on all conspired together to make Christianity highly attractive to woman), Stark posits that the scarcity of Christian men to Christian woman would have made woman look elsewhere for husbands - their neighboring pagans.

Stark says that the early church, while they would have PREFERRED marriages to occur between Christians, weren't too upset at the prospect of Christian-Pagan unions, partly because they didn't fear the woman recanting Christ and joining the faith of her husband (in defense of this, Stark cites the amazing obstinance of Christian martyrs to recant as recorded by pagan witnesses). Furthermore, it's a well-known phenomenon that wives tend to make their husbands convert to their faith, therefore exogamous marriages would have had the benefit of producing conversions.

He honestly makes a good case.

So I ask two questions: 1) Does it seem likely that Christian-pagan unions occurred during the early church and 2) If it did, was it morally acceptable?

I don't have the historical or social contextual facts knowledge to rebuff the evidence that Stark presented. But the question of the morality of such a marital union, I'm still highly uncomfortable. Not only does Jesus seem to forbid it, it just makes sense that a Christian can't fully serve God in a "unequally yoked" household and the question of how to raise the children seems like another concern.

[DJWatz]

I suspect there's more to it than appears on the surface.

Bearing in mind that arranged marriages were probably still the norm, choice might well have been absent for many. Also bear in mind that for much of the next century or so, christianity was illegal, and at times punishable by death. So "I won't marry you because you aren't a christian" is something that wouldn't have been said. If the parents were christian also, then it is unlikely the child would have been forced into a marriage to an unbeliever, but we can assume that this was not always the case for the churches.

Bearing in mind that I am speculating, I'd suggest that the guidelines regarding marriage to unbelievers would have undergone at least some revision over this period of time, even if it was "If you can avoid it, don't marry an unbeliever. If you can't, stay true to your faith anyway."

Morally, it is what it is. If no choice existed, then morality doesn't really enter the picture.

From the time christianity was legalized, however, the morality issue may well be worth exploring further...

[nomad]

I would think this definitely happened... just reading the ECF, you see that Paul was kind of a 'lightning rod' figure... he set the bar high, and the church often failed to meet it. Just one example I remember off the top of my head... in 1 timothy 3, paul lays out the expectations for elders and deacons, specifically, that they be the husband of one wife. i will have to dig out my 'dictionary of early christian beliefs' to actually find the passage, but one of the early fathers (cyprian maybe?) was complaining about the fact there were elders and deacons who had been married 3,4,5 times... yes, serial monogamy was apparently as common in those days as it is now... and he personally believed one divorce should be forgiven, but a second should disqualify a person from being an elder/deacon.

The didache also has a similar heuristic... the didache suggested baptism should be in cold, running water... but if running water wasn't available, still water could be used, etc. all the way down to a cup of water poured over the head if that was all that was available. I think the early church held high standards but held them with practical grace, not becoming legalistic about them.

[Darth Executor]

I've always been of the opinion that Christians of the early church only married within the faith, per the instructions of Jesus that we should not be "unequally yoked".

That was Paul, not Jesus, and I don't think it specifically refers to marriage. The only mention of Christian/non-Christian marriage is 1 Corinthians 7:

12But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away.

13And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him.

14For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.

15But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace.

16For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

17But as God hath distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.

It is generally assumed that the Christian spouse is a convert, but the context itself says nothing about that, so at the very least it's perfectly plausible.

[One Bad Pig]

I've always been of the opinion that Christians of the early church only married within the faith, per the instructions of Jesus that we should not be "unequally yoked". However, Rodney Stark in his book "The Rise of Christianity" has presented a plausible defense to the theory that not only did they marry pagans, they did this a lot.

After setting out a case that the early church had an overabundance of marriageable woman (partly because Christianity forbade infanticide of unwanted female babies, the progressive nature of Christianity in its treatment towards woman [widows were looked after in contrast to pagan widows who were forced into remarriage], the refusal to allow incest, extramarital affairs, and divorce without cause, the opportunity for woman to hold respected offices in the church, and so on all conspired together to make Christianity highly attractive to woman), Stark posits that the scarcity of Christian men to Christian woman would have made woman look elsewhere for husbands - their neighboring pagans.

Eh, the first I can see, to some extent, but that would tend to merely correct an imbalance the other way. Christian widows weren't forced into remarriage, so more women were available for marriage? Perhaps, but the logical inference would be that Christian widows were LESS likely to remarry. Similarly, if the refusal of Christians to allow incest, extramarital affairs, and divorce without cause led more women to convert, it would not follow that those converts would be willing to marry a pagan, which would only expose them to those things all over again! Lastly, the office of deaconess, pretty much the only respected office allowed for women, was only available to older widows; I'm not sure how that affects things much.

One other thing to consider is that a Christian woman of marriageable age would be more likely than her pagan counterpart to forgo marriage altogether, as Paul recommended in 1 Cor 7.

As DJ alludes, marriages back then tended to be arranged. If the parents were pagan, the woman likely had little choice in the matter. If the parents were Christian, they probably avoided arranging marriages with pagans; it would require participating in a pagan marriage ceremony. Also, in an arranged marriage, love is less likely to be a factor, and the pagan husband would be well within his rights to turn his wife in if he discovered her faith.

It's possible it happened, but I doubt it's with the frequency that Rodney Stark posits.

[RBerman]

I've always been of the opinion that Christians of the early church only married within the faith, per the instructions of Jesus that we should not be "unequally yoked". However, Rodney Stark in his book "The Rise of Christianity" has presented a plausible defense to the theory that not only did they marry pagans, they did this a lot.

After setting out a case that the early church had an overabundance of marriageable woman (partly because Christianity forbade infanticide of unwanted female babies, the progressive nature of Christianity in its treatment towards woman [widows were looked after in contrast to pagan widows who were forced into remarriage], the refusal to allow incest, extramarital affairs, and divorce without cause, the opportunity for woman to hold respected offices in the church, and so on all conspired together to make Christianity highly attractive to woman), Stark posits that the scarcity of Christian men to Christian woman would have made woman look elsewhere for husbands - their neighboring pagans.

Stark says that the early church, while they would have PREFERRED marriages to occur between Christians, weren't too upset at the prospect of Christian-Pagan unions, partly because they didn't fear the woman recanting Christ and joining the faith of her husband (in defense of this, Stark cites the amazing obstinance of Christian martyrs to recant as recorded by pagan witnesses). Furthermore, it's a well-known phenomenon that wives tend to make their husbands convert to their faith, therefore exogamous marriages would have had the benefit of producing conversions.

He honestly makes a good case.

So I ask two questions: 1) Does it seem likely that Christian-pagan unions occurred during the early church and 2) If it did, was it morally acceptable?

The second question is easy to answer: It is sin. The first question is easy too: Yes, sin occurred in the early church, as it does today. But I think you're asking if Stark is correct that it was common and no big deal. His argument seems built on a big pile of "If."

If the early church had a lot of unmarried women...
If the early church gave women "respected office"...
If a nonChristian husband would like it that a woman held "respected office" in a religion other than his own (I could see that as a negative, really)...
If Christian women as a group would be tempted by marriage to nonChristians...

This seems like a "good case" to you how exactly? A good case would be something like a list of marriages and the religions of the man and wife. Or an ECF commenting, "Yeah, there are a lot of exogamous marriages, and we're cool with it." At least as you describe Stark's case, it's nothing like that; it's guesswork upon guesswork. What's his agenda? From what I read, he's only recently come to identify himself as a Christian. Was he converted through the witness of a Christian wife?

[Jin-Roh]

Would pagans have objected to marrying Christians in that era?

I know, for instance, that it was a big deal for the Jewish community to marry a pagan back then. I can see how part of that probably stuck with early Christians. Would a pagan -who is a polytheists to begin with- have cared if spouse did not make sincere offerings to their deities?

[nomad]

there are plenty of places in the world where christianity is, or has in the last 100 years, just taking hold. i wonder what kind of intermarriage rates we would see there.

It was a 'big deal' for jews to marry pagans back then... and yet we have at least one example in scripture, Timothy, whose mother was jewish but whose father was Greek (and his mother was Christian? iirc.. anyways considered devout iirc). To see an example among such a small sample size implies that was widespread as well.

also... from what I have read, christians didn't really have a set 'marriage ceremony' until much later, maybe the 11th century. though it was very formal, i don't know if it would actually involve a pagan marriage ceremony, whatever that is.

i have to go back and re-read that part. Some of this thread doesn't seem exactly like what he was proposing, but i can't remember the exact arguments.

[Teluog]

Looking at the title of this thread and the one who started it, it's difficult to not make a joke about horny doofi.

[Eeset-Shadowgrl]

• Edited by a Moderator •