There is a lot of sloppy
thinking in our modern world, especially when it comes to the area of faith and
beliefs. While this shows up frequently in mainstream outlets (the blog over at
GetReligion has covered the myopia of the press for years), social media is
one of the main enablers of quick quips that sound good but really make no sense
at all. The internet meme is a prime example of this.
I've been deconstructing memes every once in a while on the blog; you can find some of my
previous posts
here.
Yesterday, though, I had the first opportunity to interact with the creator of
one of these slick picture-slogans. Atheist Michael Sherlock claims
"Christianity did not become a major religion by the quality of its truth, but
by the quantity of its violence." After
I had pointed out the fact that early Christianity didn't spread by doing
violence, but were the victims of various martyrdoms, Sherlock
sought to argue that the early church leaders would solicit Christians to
become martyrs for the PR value and attract more adherents. Yesterday I showed
why
his claims and sources fail.
However, there's another problem with the
argument. It simply isn't true that since Christians were the recipients of
violent acts, it somehow justifies his meme. If one looks carefully at what
Sherlock's meme states, the reasons become apparent.
Martyrdom Wasn't
Attractive to Romans
First off, it would be a mistake to assume that ancient
Roman culture would look upon those who are conscientiously objecting to state
requirements in the same way that we may in the 21st century. One source
Sherlock cites is a footnote of Anthony Briley that supposedly shows Christians
are trained to be martyrs. Briley comments that "Marcus thinks of Christians as
'lined up unarmed' for death, as soldiers in battle array: but not as persons
who had really made an individual reasoned choice — they were drilled, and
trained to die…" I think Sherlock misunderstands this passage. Briley wasn't
saying that Christian were training to die. Rather, he was using this as one of
many examples of how Aurelius would see Christians in a negative light.
It
strikes me this is actually evidence against Sherlock's charge. The Romans were
a militaristic people and valued not dying for one's own cause, but killing on
behalf of the state. Alvin J. Schmidt quotes Richard Frothingham stating "The
individual was regarded as of value only if he was part of the political fabric
and able to contribute to its uses, as though it were the end of his being to
aggrandize the State."
1. Roman virtues of
frugalitas,
severitas, and
fidelis that Roman soldiers were expected to exhibit were considered virtuous, not the
giving of oneself to death. A man who is martyred for
crimes against Rome would be about as attractive to Romans as suicide bombers
are to Americans today. You may get a few fringe followers, but it would in no
way explain drastic growth in the same way that
Christian charity and missionary efforts do.
The Problem with Blaming Christians for
Being Martyrs
What Sherlock has attempted to do is to justify his meme after
the fact by claiming that performing violence on Christians is the same thing as
Christian violence. Note what the meme states:
"Christianity did not become a
major religion by the quality of its truth, but by the quantity of its
violence." Anyone who reads that will understand it to say that Christianity
grew to a world religion through violent conquest as its primary proselytizing
method. The phrase "quantity of its violence" can be parsed clearly. Sherlock
uses a possessive pronoun to state that it is Christian-generated violence that
expanded the faith. Then, when called out on the mistake, he makes says the
violence of martyrdom justifies his meme. He writes, "Thus, in the ante-Nicene
period, prior to its transformation into a dangerous and murderous religion,
Christianity was but a violent suicide cult, the aim of which was to spread by
way of violent theatrics aimed at inspiring onlookers with the needless spilling
of the blood of innocent fools."
2
To claim that
Christian martyrs died as a PR stunt is despicable . Briley, in the same
footnote that's mentioned above, talks about the charges of incest and
cannibalism that would also arise against Christians, false charges that Roman
apologists such as Minucius Felix or Lollianus would use to stir the populous
against them.
3 The fact that the Romans
felt they needed to fabricate false charges puts Sherlock's claim in doubt. Historian
Robert L. Wliken tells us that charges of incest and cannibalism "had become
widespread" against Christians by the late second century and comments that in
the Roman world "charges of immorality and licentiousness were often brought
against devious individuals or groups."
4 Wilken then
notes how the charges became standardized, following a very specific pattern
which underscores their dubious nature.
5
So how does
Sherlock come to the conclusion that Christian leaders would encourage "many of
their followers to provoke the Roman authorities?" If so many Christians were
seeking to provoke the powers that be, why would a society that values law and
order need to invent anything at all? The fact is that no reputable scholar of
the anti-Nicean period would ever take Sherlock's interpretation seriously. He's
gasping at trying to make Christianity into something it isn't. Sherlock is
using the same tact that Felix and Lollianus did, only the evidence falls
against him.
The early martyrdom suffered by the saints cannot be considered
Christian violence, but only violence done to Christians. Even today, Christians
are the
most persecuted people in the world because of their faith. Reports out of
Nairobi and other nations about
gunmen hunting down Christians in shopping malls are horrifying. Does
Sherlock label this "Christian violence?" Does he think that the
dozens who died simply because they were attending All Saints' Church
staged it for the PR value? Such claims would rightfully be considered
disgusting and offensive. Just because the early martyrs preceded these by some
1700 years doesn't make Sherlock's claims any less so.
Internet memes can be
very attractive if one doesn't think to carefully. It's easy to try and reduce
centuries of history to a few words. But history isn't so reducible. Neither is
dismissing the deaths of others because you don't like their faith.
References
Convincing Christianity
X
