Certain interpretations of some moral decisions in the Bible are considered ethically questionable by many modern groups. Some of the passages most commonly criticized include colonialism, the subjugation of women, religious intolerance, condemnation of homosexuality, and support for the institution of slavery in both Old and New Testaments.

The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche criticized the ethics of Christianity. See Philosophy_of_Friedrich_Nietzsche#Christianity_and_morality.

Colonialism

Christianity and colonialism are often closely associated because Catholicism and Protestantism were the religions of the European colonial powers[52] and acted in many ways as the "religious arm" of those powers.[53] Initially, Christian missionaries were portrayed as "visible saints, exemplars of ideal piety in a sea of persistent savagery". However, by the time the colonial era drew to a close in the last half of the twentieth century, missionaries became viewed as “ideological shock troops for colonial invasion whose zealotry blinded them.”[54]

Christianity is targeted by critics of colonialism because the tenets of the religion were used to justify the actions of the colonists.[55] For example, Michael Wood asserts that the indigenous peoples were not considered to be human beings and that the colonisers was shaped by "centuries of Ethnocentrism, and Christian monotheism, which espoused one truth, one time and version of reality.”[56]

Slavery

Early Christianity variously opposed, accepted, or ignored slavery.[2] The early Christian perspectives of slavery were formed in the contexts of Christianity's roots in Judaism, and as part of the wider culture of the Roman Empire. Both the Old and New Testaments recognize that the institution of slavery existed.

The earliest surviving Christian teachings about slavery are from Paul the Apostle, who frequently referred to himself as a "Slave of Christ." Paul did not renounce the institution of slavery. Conversely, he taught that Christian slaves ought to serve their masters wholeheartedly.Templat:Bibleref2c At the same time, he taught slave owners to treat their slaves fairly. The entire Epistle to Philemon is devoted to Onesimus, a runaway slave and convert whom Paul returns to his master, to be seen as "not just a slave, but much more than a slave; he is a dear brother in Christ."Templat:Bibleref2c Tradition describes Pope Pius I (term c. 158-167) and Pope Callixtus I (term c. 217-222) as former slaves.[57]

Since the Middle Ages, the Christian understanding of slavery has seen significant internal conflict and endured dramatic change. Nearly all Christian leaders before the late 17th century regarded slavery, within specific Biblical limitations, as consistent with Christian theology. In early Medieval times, the Church discouraged slavery throughout Europe, largely eliminating it.[58] That changed in 1452, when Pope Nicholas V instituted hereditary slavery of captured Muslims and pagans, which effectively meant Africans or Asians.[petikan diperlukan] As he read the Bible, God had instructed his faithful to make slaves of the neighboring heathens.[petikan diperlukan] Pope Paul III in the 1537 bull Sublimis Deus forbade the seizing of pagans as slaves, however various Christian groups[nyatakan menurut siapa?] have taught that Africans were the descendants of Ham, cursed with "the mark of Ham" (dark skin) to be servants to the descendants of Japheth (Europeans) and Shem (Asians).[2][halaman diperlukan]

Rodney Stark makes the argument in For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery,[59] that Christianity helped to end slavery worldwide, as does Lamin Sanneh in Abolitionists Abroad.[60] These authors point out that Christians who viewed slavery as wrong on the basis of their religious convictions spearheaded abolitionism, and many of the early campaigners for the abolition of slavery were driven by their Christian faith and a desire to realize their view that all people are equal under God.[61] In the late 17th century, anabaptists began to criticize slavery. Criticisms from the Society of Friends, Mennonites, and the Amish followed suit. Prominent among these Christian abolitionists were William Wilberforce, and John Woolman. Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote her famous book, Uncle Tom's Cabin, according to her Christian beliefs in 1852. Earlier, in Britain and America, Quakers were active in abolitionism. A group of Quakers founded the first English abolitionist organization, and a Quaker petition brought the issue before government that same year. The Quakers continued to be influential throughout the lifetime of the movement, in many ways leading the way for the campaign. John Wesley, the founder of Methodism, was instrumental in starting abolitionism as a popular movement.[62]

Nearly all modern Christians are united in the condemnation of slavery as wrong and contrary to God's will. Only peripheral groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and other Christian hate groups on the racist fringes of the Christian Reconstructionist and Christian Identity movements advocate the reinstitution of slavery.[2] Full adherents to reconstructionism are few and marginalized among conservative Christians.[63][64][65] With these exceptions, all Christian faith groups now condemn slavery, and see the practice as incompatible with basic Christian principles.[2][58]

In addition to aiding abolitionism, many Christians made further efforts toward establishing racial equality, contributing to the Civil Rights Movement.[66] The African American Review notes the important role Christian revivalism in the black church played in the Civil Rights Movement.[67] Martin Luther King, Jr., an ordained Baptist minister, was a leader of the American Civil Rights Movement and president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, a Christian Civil Rights organization.[68]

Christianity and women

Joan of Arc led battles in the fight to free France from England. She believed that God had commanded her to do so. Upon capture, she was tried for heresy by an English court and burned at the stake. She is now a saint venerated in the Roman Catholic Church.[69]

Many feminists have accused notions such as a male God, male prophets, and the man-centred stories in the Bible of contributing to a patriarchy.[70] Though many women disciples and servants are recorded in the Pauline epistles, there have been occasions in which women have been denigrated and forced into a second-class status.[71][72] For example, women were told to keep silent in the churches for "it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church."Templat:Bibleref2c Suffragist Elizabeth Cady Stanton said in The Woman's Bible that "the Bible in its teachings degrades Women from Genesis to Revelation".[73]

Elizabeth Clark cites early Christian writings by authors such as Augustine, Tertullian and John Chrysostom as being exemplary of the negative perception of women that has been perpetuated in church tradition.[74] Until the latter part of the twentieth century, only the names of very few women who contributed to the formation of Christianity in its earliest years were widely known: Mary, the mother of Jesus;[75] Mary Magdalene, disciple of Jesus and the first witness to the resurrection; and Mary and Martha, the sisters who offered him hospitality in Bethany.[76]

Harvard scholar Karen King writes that more of the many women who contributed to the formation of Christianity in its earliest years are becoming known. Further, she concludes that for centuries in Western Christianity, Mary Magdalene has been wrongly identified as the adulteress and repentant prostitute presented in John 8–a connection supposed by tradition but nowhere claimed in the New Testament. According to King, the Gospel of Mary shows that she was an influential figure, a prominent disciple and leader of one wing of the early Christian movement that promoted women's leadership.

King claims that every sect within early Christianity which had advocated women's prominence in ancient Christianity was eventually declared heretical, and evidence of women's early leadership roles was erased or suppressed.[76]

Stagg and Stagg, in a scholarly book entitled Woman in the World of Jesus, document very unfavorable attitudes toward women that prevailed in the world into which Jesus came. They assert that there is no recorded instance where Jesus disgraces, belittles, reproaches, or stereotypes a woman. They interpret the recorded treatment and attitude Jesus showed to women as evidence that the Founder of Christianity treated women with great dignity and respect.[77] Various theologians have concluded that the canonical examples of the manner of Jesus are instructive for inferring his attitudes toward women. They are seen as showing repeatedly and consistently how he liberated and affirmed women.[78] However, Schalom Ben-Chorin argues that Jesus's reply to his mother in John 2:4 during the wedding at Cana amounted to a blatant violation of the commandment to honor one's parent.Templat:Bibleref2c [79] He mistakenly assumes Jesus's response to be an offensive statement, when in all actuality, the term "woman" was used to show respect in the Hebrew cultures. Also, Christ was an adult at the time, thirty years of age. He had the Biblical right to refuse a command by his mother, and he did so stating that he was doing his Father's (God's) business.

There are three major viewpoints within modern Christianity over the role of women. They are known respectively as Christian feminism, Christian Egalitarianism and Complementarianism.

• Christian Feminists take an actively feminist position from a Christian perspective.[80]
• Christian Egalitarians advocate ability-based, rather than gender-based, ministry of Christians of all ages, ethnicities and socio-economic classes.[81] Egalitarians support the ordination of women and equal roles in marriage, but are theologically and morally more conservative than Christian feminists and prefer to avoid the label "feminist." A limited notion of gender complementarity is held by some, known as "complementarity without hierarchy."[82]
• Complementarians support both equality and beneficial differences between men and women.[83] They believe the Bible teaches that men and women have distinct complementary roles in both marriage and in the church. They maintain that men have a responsibility to lead and women have a responsibility to submit to the leadership of men.

Some Christians argue that the idea of God as a man is based less on gender but rather on the dominant Patriarchal society of the time in which men acted as leaders and caretakers of the Family.[84] Thus, the idea of God being "The Father" is with regards to his relationship with what are "his children", Christians.

In 2000, the Southern Baptist Convention voted to revise its "Baptist Faith and Message" (Statement of Faith),[85] opposing women as pastors. While this decision is not binding and would not prevent women from serving as pastors, the revision itself has been criticized by some from within the convention.[86] In the same document, the Southern Baptist Convention took a strong position of the subordinating view of woman in marriage: "A wife is to submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband. She has the God-given responsibility to respect her husband and to serve as his helper in managing the household and nurturing the next generation."

In recent years, there has been a small revival in the role of deaconesses in the Eastern Orthodox. The Chaldean Catholic Church on the other hand continues to maintain a large number of deaconesses serving alongside male deacons during mass.[87]

In some evangelical churches, it is forbidden for women to become pastors, deacons or church elders. In support of such prohibitions, the verse 1 Timothy 2:12 is often cited:[88]

“I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent.”

Christianity and politics

Some leftists and libertarians use the term Christian fascism or Christofascism to describe what some see as an emerging proto-fascism and possible theocracy in the United States.[89]

Reverend Rich Lang of the Trinity United Methodist Church of Seattle gave a sermon titled "George Bush and the Rise of Christian Fascism", in which he said, "I want to flesh out the ideology of the Christian Fascism that Bush articulates. It is a form of Christianity that is the mirror opposite of what Jesus embodied."[90]

Christianity and violence

Many critics of Christianity (and other monotheistic religions) have cited the violent acts of Christianized nations as another reason to denounce the religion. For example, science-fiction writer Arthur C. Clarke said that he could not forgive religions for the atrocities and wars over time.[91] Richard Dawkins makes a similar case in his book, The God Delusion. In The Dawkins Delusion?, Alister McGrath responds to Dawkins by suggesting that, far from endorsing "out-group hostility," Jesus commanded an ethic of "out-group affirmation." McGrath agrees that it is necessary to critique religion, but says that Dawkins seems unaware that it possesses internal means of reform and renewal. While Christians may certainly be accused of failing to live up to Jesus standard of acceptance, it is there at the heart of the Christian ethic.[92] The relationship of Christianity and violence is the subject of controversy because some people assert that Christianity advocates peace, love and compassion while others view it as a violent religion. Peace, compassion and forgiveness of wrongs done by others are key elements of Christian teaching. However, Christians have struggled since the days of the Church fathers with the question of when the use of force is justified. Such debates have led to concepts such as just war theory. Throughout history, certain teachings from the Old Testament, the New Testament and Christian theology have been used to justify the use of force against heretics, sinners and external enemies. Heitman and Hagan identify the Inquisitions, Crusades, wars of religion and antisemitism as being "among the most notorious examples of Christian violence".[93] To this list, J. Denny Weaver adds, "warrior popes, support for capital punishment, corporal punishment under the guise of 'spare the rod and spoil the child,' justifications of slavery, world-wide colonialism in the name of conversion to Christianity, the systemic violence of women subjected to men." Weaver employs a broader definition of violence that extends the meaning of the word to cover "harm or damage", not just physical violence per se. Thus, under his definition, Christian violence includes "forms of systemic violence such as poverty, racism, and sexism."[94]

Although some Christians have relied on Christian teaching to justify their use of force, other Christians have opposed the use of force and violence. Some of the latter have formed sects that have emphasized pacificism as a central tenet of their faith. Christians have also engaged in violence against those that they classify as heretics and non-believers specifically to enforce orthodoxy of their faith.In Letter to a Christian Nation, critic of religion Sam Harris writes that "...faith inspires violence in at least two ways. First, people often kill other human beings because they believe that the creator of the universe wants them to do it... Second, far greater numbers of people fall into conflict with one another because they define their moral community on the basis of their religious affiliation..."[95]

Christian theologians point to a strong doctrinal and historical imperative within Christianity against violence, particularly Jesus's Sermon on the Mount, which taught nonviolence and love of enemies. For example, Weaver asserts that Jesus's pacifism was "preserved in the justifiable war doctrine that declares all war as sin even when declaring it occasionally a necessary evil, and in the prohibition of fighting by monastics and clergy as well as in a persistent tradition of Christian pacifism."[94] Others point out sayings and acts of Jesus that do not fit this description: the absence of any censure of the soldier who asks Jesus to heal his servant, his overturning the tables and chasing the moneychangers from the temple with a rope in his hand, and through his Apostles, baptising a Roman Centurion who is never asked to first give up arms.[96]

Criticism of the violent acts of Christian societies is not limited to atheists and agnostics, as Christian pacifists would argue that Christianity had been co-opted by militant states to simply provide justification for political agendas; that is, violence is antithetical to the teachings of Jesus, and as such war and genocide are regarded as un-Christian acts.