Historical Examples of Church Compromise with Cultural Norms
The history of the Christian church includes numerous instances where its practices and doctrines have intersected with, and sometimes adapted to, prevailing cultural norms. These interactions often highlight tensions between divine law and human tradition, leading to both intentional and unintentional compromises.
One significant area of historical compromise involves the administration of the sacraments. The early church, following Christ's command in Matthew 26:27, offered both bread and wine to all communicants in the Lord's Supper [4]. Paul's account in 1 Corinthians 11:27 further indicates that the entire congregation partook of both elements [4]. However, over time, the practice evolved. The Augsburg Confession notes that the withholding of the cup from the laity became a widespread custom, despite the clear biblical mandate for "both kinds" [4]. Charles Hodge details how, initially, the practice of dipping the bread into the wine (intinction) was introduced for the sick and later adopted in some monasteries and parishes, eventually becoming the ordinary method in Greek and other Eastern churches for the laity [5]. This shift, which did not receive official Roman Catholic sanction for general use, illustrates a gradual adaptation of sacramental practice, moving away from the original form [5].
Another notable example is the issue of clerical celibacy. The Augsburg Confession criticizes the insistence on celibacy for bishops and clergy, arguing that such traditions cannot be kept with a good conscience and that bishops should not insist on them [1]. This reflects a cultural norm within the medieval church that elevated celibacy, contrasting with earlier Christian practices and biblical examples.
The church's stance on marriage and divorce has also seen various accommodations with cultural and legal systems. While Christians generally agree that polygamy is sinful and that monogamy is the law of God and Christ, the practical application of this principle has been complex [6]. Charles Hodge discusses how, when civil laws conflict with divine law regarding marriage, the church must uphold its principles, even if it means refusing to recognize certain divorces or solemnize marriages that violate Christian teaching [7]. The French Revolution, for instance, led to a period where the sanctity of marriage was largely disregarded, with civil codes allowing divorce on various grounds [9]. The church has historically navigated these legal and cultural shifts, sometimes finding itself in opposition to state-sanctioned practices [7].
The concept of tradition itself has been a point of contention and potential compromise. Charles Hodge argues that making tradition an equal part of the rule of faith, alongside Scripture, subverts the authority of the Scriptures [2]. He suggests that if tradition is seen as an infallible interpreter, it effectively dictates the understanding of Scripture, rather than Scripture being the ultimate authority [2]. This highlights a tension between the desire to maintain continuity with past practices and the commitment to biblical fidelity.
Even in the early church, there were instances where cultural customs influenced Christian practice. For example, in the cosmopolitan Corinthian church, the custom of women wearing head coverings was a point of discussion, with Paul ultimately appealing to established church custom, which many contemporary interpreters understand as culturally based [8]. This suggests that some practices, while not explicitly commanded by Christ, were adopted and maintained due to their cultural significance within the community [8].
The church's engagement with social evils also demonstrates a complex relationship with cultural norms. While Christianity never tolerated "rash experiments of living," individuals transitioning out of heathenism sometimes brought with them practices that required careful discernment [3]. The encouragement of monasticism, in its pure form, was sometimes seen as a way to address social evils, though it also had the potential for corruption [3].
Throughout its history, the church has faced the challenge of maintaining its distinct identity and divine mandates while existing within diverse cultural contexts. These examples illustrate that the line between faithful adaptation and problematic compromise has often been debated and redefined across different eras and traditions.
Sources
- Augsburg Confession (Lutheran) “Augsburg Confession (Lutheran, 1530), 69 But the bishops might easily retain the lawful obedience of: 69 But the bishops might easily retain the lawful obedience of the people if they would not insist upon the observance of such traditions as cannot be kept with a good conscience. 70 Now they command celibacy; they admit none unless they swear that they will not teach 71 the pure doctrine of the Gospel. The churches do not ask that the bishops should restore concord at the expense of their honor; which, nevertheless, 72 it would be proper for good pastors to do. They ask only that they would r”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 1, section 37: hundreds of folios in which these traditions are recorded? Surely a guide to the interpretation of the latter must be far more needed than one for the Scriptures. Tradition destroys the Authority of the Scriptures. 6. Making tradition a part of the rule of faith subverts the authority of the Scriptures. This follows as a natural and unavoidable consequence. If there be two standards of doctrine of equal authority, the one the explanatory, and infallible interpreter of the other, it is of necessity the interpretation which determines the f”
- Schaff ANF/NPNF (Patristic) “ANF Vol 2: Hermas, Tatian, Theophilus, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria — ELUCIDATIONS. (part 4): are pure." But the Gospel proscribes everything like presumption and" leading into temptation." The Church, in dealing with social evils, often encouraged a recourse to monasticism, in its pure form; but this also tended to corruption. To charge Christianity, however, with rash experiments of living which it never tolerated, is neither just nor philosophical. We have in it an example of the struggles of individuals out of heathenism,--by no means an institution of Christianity itself. It was a s”
- Augsburg Confession (Lutheran) “Augsburg Confession (Lutheran, 1530), 1 To the laity are given Both Kinds in the Sacrament of the Lord’s: 1 To the laity are given Both Kinds in the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, because this usage has the commandment of the Lord in Matt. 26:27: Drink ye all of it, 2 where Christ has manifestly commanded concerning the cup that all should drink. 3 And lest any man should craftily say that this refers only to priests, Paul in 1 Cor. 11:27 recites an example from which it appears that the whole congregation did use both kinds. 4 And this usage has long remained in the Church, nor is it known w”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, section 68: being distributed separately, the bread is dipped into the wine, and both are received together. This mode of administering the Lord’s Supper, was, it is said, introduced at first, only in reference to the sick; then it was practised in some of the monasteries; and was partially introduced into the parishes. It never, however, received the sanction of the Roman Church. In the Greek and the other oriental churches it became the ordinary method, so far as the laity are concerned. The bread and wine are mixed together in the cup, and, by a s”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, section 49: his admission into the Christian Church? The answer to this question has been sought from three sources: First, the Scriptural doctrine of marriage; secondly, the example of the Apostles when dealing with such cases; and thirdly, from a consideration of the effects which would follow from making monogamy an indispensable condition of admission to the Church. As to the first point, it is admitted by all Christians, that it ie the law of God, the law of Christ, and consequently the law of the Christian Church that polygamy is sinful, being ”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, section 49: the action of the state conflicts with that law, such action must be disregarded. If a person be divorced on other than Scriptural grounds and marries again, such person cannot consistently be received to the fellowship of the Church. If a minister be called upon to solemnize the marriage of a person improperly divorced, he cannot, in consistency with his allegiance to Christ, perform the service. This conflict between the civil and divine law is a great evil, and has often, especially in Prussia, given rise to great difficulty. As all de”
- 1 Corinthians (Protestant academic) “Tyndale House on 1 Corinthians 11:16: 11:16 if anyone wants to argue about this: Some in the cosmopolitan Corinthian church did not agree with Paul. • Paul’s final argument is that the use of a head covering was an established custom of the church. Most contemporary interpreters take this verse to mean that the custom was culturally based.”
- CCEL (Reformed (Old Princeton)) “Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Vol. 3, section 49: of the Romish Church were in force until the Revolution. That event threw everything into confusion, and the sanctity of marriage was in a great degree disregarded. Under the empire of the first Napoleon, the civil code allowed divorce, (1.) for simple adultery on the part of the wife; (2.) for aggravated adultery on the part of the husband; (3.) for outrages and cruelty; (4.) for the condemnation of either party to an infamous punishment; and (5.) for mutual persistent consent. The restoration of the Bourbons put an end to these laws and”