The latest book by bestselling author and controversial Australian feminist Clementine Ford is I Don’t: The Case Against Marriage (Allen & Unwin, 2023). She wants this book to not only dissuade people from getting married but also ‘to end marriages’, because of the harm they bring to women. This article isn’t about her main thesis, but the striking way she begins her case against marriage. The very first step Ford takes is to outline the history of Christianity and so discount the moral authority of the church.
It is surprising and disappointing just how poorly informed Ford is about the history of the early church. She makes many assertions that are unreferenced, unverified, and untrue. In this article I will fact-check her claims, put forward to undermine the credibility of Christianity and so Christian ethics.
Clementine Ford on the Early Church
Ford starts by claiming the Bible has no basis in history:
[It is a] mishmash of completely unverified reports—most of which seem to have been documented while under the influence of hardcore street drugs. (p. 21)
She claims that the early church didn’t really know what it believed until a long time after Jesus. Rather:
The formal tenets of Christianity and its official doctrines weren’t properly established until around 325 AD, when a gang of bishops in Turkey got together to form the First Council of Nicea and basically establish consensus on what the religion’s parameters were. (p. 22)
On this retelling, Christian doctrine is arbitrary.
Since Christianity is arbitrary, therefore its teachings are self-serving. The true priority of the church was not doctrine or spirituality but money:
Funnily enough for a religion hell-bent on collecting tithes from its parishioners, ‘making money’ was high on the list of Church priorities (p.22)
In fact, ‘money has always been a primary concern of the Church’ (p. 22).
Ford tells a powerful story that invalidates Christian contributions to contemporary ethical conversation. ‘[T]he harm caused by this garbage can’t be underestimated’ she goes on to write (p. 27); the Bible ‘should never be deferred to as an authority on human existence’ (p. 30–31).
What can we say in response to Clementine Ford?
The Bible Is Historical
The authors of the New Testament insisted that they were writing history. At the start of his Gospel, Luke acknowledges that ‘many had undertaken to draw up an account’ of what had occurred. Hence he ‘investigated everything carefully’ to write his own ‘orderly account’, drawing on the recollections of eyewitnesses (Lk 1:1–4). A point in his favour is his general historical reliability. Famed archaeologist Sir William Ramsay claims that
Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy…[he] should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.[1]
Even if you are not entirely convinced about the truth of the Bible, it must be recognised that history in general and the recording of the traditions of Jesus in an orderly and verified manner in particular were important to the early church. Ford’s dismissal of the Bible as a ‘mishmash of unverified reports’ is a gross mischaracterisation.
The Council of Nicea Did Not Invent Christianity
Doctrinal parameters of the new Christian faith were drawn even in the first century. For example, 1 Corinthians 15:3–5 appears to be an early a statement of faith outlining the very fundamental tenets of the Christian faith:
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve.
The denunciation of false teachers on doctrinal grounds in the New Testament (for e.g. 1 Jn 4:1–3) is another indication that the church held defined doctrinal boundaries centuries before the Council of Nicea. So Jude verse 3 urges believers to ‘contend the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people’ (Jude 3).
The Council of Nicea was not convened to establish parameters for church doctrine but primarily to resolve one specific controversy about concerning the divine nature of Christ. It is a vast unhistorical overstatement to claim that no formal tenets of Christianity were finalised until 325 AD.
The Early Church Was Not About Making Money
It’s a sad indictment on the history of the church that this assertion could even be believed. Jesus was emphatic in his teaching that people cannot serve both God and money (Matt 6:24). He spoke regularly of the blessedness of the poor and the dangers of wealth and riches (for e.g. Luke 6:20, 12:14). For the first few centuries of the church’s existence, Christians were often impoverished, persecuted and marginalised. The Apostle Paul was regularly thrown into prison, believers had property confiscated by authorities (Heb 10:34) and Peter encouraged believers to persevere through suffering (1 Peter 4:12).
Moreover, the topic of money was discussed at the Council of Nicea: a resolution on the prohibition of clergy engaging in usury (lending money at interest, Canon 17).
As the church grew in influence and importance, it was indeed tempted to serve money—a temptation the New Testament warns about. But there is little ground for the claim that this was its essential agenda.
The Power of a Story
Clementine Ford tells a story that the origins of the church were false, arbitrary and selfish. This account powerfully discounts the moral authority of Christianity. Yet after a brief examination of the history and character of the early church, this story itself is substantially false.
That is not to say that I have proved the truthfulness of all Christian doctrine, or that everything that the church has to say on marriage or any other moral issues is right. Ford has a whole book full of reasons to reject the Christian endorsement of marriage. But this article has shown that her critical account of early church history is too simplistic—she has not succeeded in discrediting the Christianity from its very inception.
To that extent at least, if Jesus and his people cannot be summarily dismissed, perhaps they just might have something worthwhile to add to our modern ethical conversations?
[1] Sir William Ramsay, The Bearing of Recent Discoveries on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament, p. 222.
