When it comes to historical figures, my rule of thumb is "the more you know, the harder they are to love". Everything human, both individual and institution is flawed. It's attractive to believe that these flaws are limited to the superficial, but they're not. Rot at the core spreads outwards, and we're all a little rotten, inside and out. Knowledge casts a complexity on something, and makes it difficult to lump it into absolutes.
I know some folks who have had a certain fixation on early Christianity. When I say early Christianity, I mean like apostolic. Only the first 50 years or so. Their affection for early Christianity is matched by their distrust and contempt for later, more orthodox flavors of Christianity (and beyond). Until lately, I've been sympathetic to this viewpoint. For one, I too have deep contempt for the history of orthodox and catholic traditions in east and west. Christianity of the 4th and 5th centuries took a deep, penetrating dive into some Extreme Nastiness which I don't think it ever recovered from. I'm also sympathetic to those who desire a less rigid and organized form of faith that goes "back to basics" as it were.
Lately, however, I've identified the psychological pull that makes apostolic Christianity so appealing: we know next to nothing about it. The Christianity of Peter and Paul was still gestating, it wasn't even in it's infancy yet. It was a cult in the true sense of the word, it really had no orthodoxy. What a Christian community looked like from city to city was very different. The nature of Christ himself, his relationship with God, how to properly worship aformentioned God were all still very much undecided. If you had to classify it at all, it would be as a sect of Judaism (leaving out Paul's flock of course).
And that's my point. To a large degree, it's a blank slate on which the modern Christian is free to project his own judgements. It's the legend of Camelot, a kernel of historical truth with modern notions and sensibilities appended. What do we really know about Peter? He lived. He had a following. He wrote some letters. He was martyred. But was he a dick? Was he condescending to people who took his dictation? Did he flirt with girls in his congregation? Dunno. Dunno because he wasn't prominent enough among his contemporaries to have his foibles recorded for posterity.
On the other hand I know that Caesar was vain and sensitive about his baldness. I know that Marc Antony has a HUGE asshole who told lowbrow jokes, gambled millions of dollars in debt, and told his debtors to go screw themselves. I know that the emperor Tiberius kept a cadre of pre-pubescent boys (his "minnows") trained to follow him while he swam and nibble at his scrotum. And so, it's appropriate that we don't hold much reverence for Tiberius. But the reverence and special place that some hold for the early Christian movement, that has not been earned. It's only due to a lack of detail that we feel comfortable enshrining it. Perhaps if Peter and Paul were running the whole show, like Ambrose and Augustine were, history would shine a little light on their unapproachable holiness, and we'd be left with a more complex view of Christianity, that's doesn't file away so neatly and easily.
I want to respond but lack time.
ReplyDeleteYes, it is true we know very little about the personal lives of early Christian figureheads. Maybe Paul was a raging alcoholic and maybe Peter liked to molest little boys (thus beginning an honored Catholic tradition). However, my assumption is that they were genuinely decent people with well-meaning intentions.
ReplyDeleteI make this assumption for one reason: The early Christian figureheads had no tangible power. They had no authority to force conversions or persecute other religions.
So, how do we account for the significant following Christianity amassed within a generally short amount of time? Perhaps one of the answers is positive role models?
Do you really think the ancient Mediterraneans would have been so eager to buy into Christianity if the apostles were bogged down with vices?
No, they probably were decent people.
ReplyDeleteI'm just saying it's a lot easier to latch onto them as objects of obsession when you don't know a lot about them. It doesn't seem correct that prestige and reputation should be enhanced as a result of ignorance. Well, ignorance combined with the fact that these guys founded the church. Knowing at least some petty foibles about these very human figures would help flesh them out, and represent them as nuanced, complex people (which I'm sure they were).
For example, one of my favorite early Christian figures, who is also pretty well documented is Origen. Origen was an ascetic theologan who wrote a lot of works about theology. Origen is a neat figure, but he's not a Church Father, and he's not really a figure of obsession for a few reasons. He had some curious personal issues (apparently he had a problem with lust, took Jesus's advice literally and ended up cutting his own balls off). He also had some career difficulties involving a conflict with the Bishop of Alexandria, and he supported some books of scripture which were later declared heterodox.
All of this combined leaves the modern viewer a portrait of a very good, but complex man. Not perfect, but striving after virtue, etc etc. But, as virtuous as he may have been, you won't hear his name alongside Augustine and Gregory, and certainly not alongside Peter and Paul.
"I'm just saying it's a lot easier to latch onto them as objects of obsession when you don't know a lot about them. It doesn't seem correct that prestige and reputation should be enhanced as a result of ignorance."
ReplyDeleteYou know, I seriously doubt most devout Christians would be willing to validate your point. I am willing to bet the majority of Christians think they have a pretty good idea of what the apostles and other early church fathers were like.
They are probably universally viewed among the Christian community as being people who, though not completely devoid of sin or error, were at the pinnacle of human virtue. And you know it wouldn't matter if there existed an inkling of evidence for or against this claim. After all, these are the people supposedly chosen by God to lay the foundation of Christianity after Jesus' death. It really only makes sense the flock would take for granted the notion that people like Peter or Paul were exceptionally ethical men.
I'm not really sure what you're driving at here. That people aren't always willing to look at historical evidence? OK, agreed. That Christians both modern and ancient believed the apostles to be the pinnicle of virtue? Ok, agreed.
ReplyDeleteObviously me pulling some magic evidence out of my hat, now, in the 21st century won't make a dent. If the christian movement of the 1st century was higher profile, however, and there were more detailed biographical info of the apostles, more eyes on them, while they do their thing, biographical info written by contemporaries, I strongly suspect the course of Christianity would have gone down a different path. An yes, I believe the personal focus on the apostles would be less intense, then and now.
Now, whether devout Christians would be willing to validate that suspicion, doesn't really concern me.
Have you ever brought up your argument to one of these fans of the Apostolic Age? Or what about just to a Christian in general? Whether you have or not, I seriously doubt most Christians would spend sleepless nights pondering if Peter fondled little boys or not.
ReplyDeleteThis is my point: It is not going to matter to a Christian that we lack an abundance of biographical information on the early Church founders, because most Christians probably already feel as though they "know" the characteristics of these people.
Like I said in an earlier post, the early Church Fathers are supposedly the people chosen by God to lay down the foundation of Christianity. Why wouldn't a Christian immediately assume these were highly virtuous people?
Now, I doubt any Christian would claim the early founders were perfect people (Peter's sin of denying Jesus is a great example of this imperfection). Nevertheless, no Christian would take wild speculation questioning the virtuous persona of the early founders seriously.
Sure, maybe the early founders were a group of liers and thieves? Maybe they all had doubt in what they saw and what they heard? Still, it does not matter if any of this speculation is true or not, because the myth of Christianity is dependent upon people having faith that it is NOT true. They are just as justified in believing the Apostolic Age was a golden age much in the same manner that they are justified in believing Jesus rose from the dead (which is to say, of course, that they are not justified at all, but obviously the Christians don't give a shit).
"If the christian movement of the 1st century was higher profile, however, and there were more detailed biographical info of the apostles, more eyes on them, while they do their thing, biographical info written by contemporaries, I strongly suspect the course of Christianity would have gone down a different path."
How do you suppose a Christian would respond to this? Maybe something along the lines of, "Or maybe we'd see just how virtuous the apostles and other Church Fathers really were?"
"Now, whether devout Christians would be willing to validate that suspicion, doesn't really concern me."
If you don't really care about what the Christian has to say, then why bother bringing this topic up in the first place? Sure, other secularists might give you a thumbs up and a pat on the back, but I doubt you find much satisfaction in just, shall I say, preaching to the choir.
"If you don't really care about what the Christian has to say, then why bother bringing this topic up in the first place?"
ReplyDeleteI can make the point, and it's up to the reader to choose to listen or not. If they invalidate it, there's not much I can do. Yes, a Christian viewing history through the lense of strict belief already has a clear, non-negotiable picture of exactly who the apostles were. However, not every Christian is John Stegeman. Not every Christian has the Catholic tradition to adher to. Some blend theism with attention to history and take both equally seriously. I pictured my brother when I wrote this. He's a devout man who sincerely loves God, and has an acute historical interest in apostolic Christianity. I imagine that there's probably a fair number of other such "restorationalists" who wish to recreate the less organized flavor of Early Christianity (agape feasts and whatnot).
Your point about preaching to the choir is well spoken. I don't believe that getting a thumbs up from secularists was responsible for the majority of my decision to write this, but to be honest it probably held a strong minority (say 30-40%). To be blunt, getting a thumbs up from likeminded people probably accounts for AT LEAST 15-20% avg of my day-to-day decisions. I'm not exactly proud of that, but it's the truth. I have a sentimental weakness for my own ego, and I spoil it as you can see...
I want to be clear that it's not my wish to make speculations about nasty things that the apostles did or didn't do. You keep harping on that point, and I don't think it's warranted. I don't want to speculate at all. I want to point out that there's a lack of information. NULL doesn't mean good. NULL doesn't mean bad. NULL means NULL.
I readily accept the probablity that these were virtuous men. Absolutely. But more virtuous than Origen? More so than Augustine and Gregory? More so than John Paul II? More so than the kindly and benevolent priest down the street? Why?? Why are they in a category of virtue above the rest? Because of their position in history, viewed by us through a foggy lens of many centuries, for one. Because they weren't well known in their own time, for another. This is true for Christians and non-Christians alike. It vexes me when people say "I don't believe, but I still think Jesus and the Apostles were exceedingly good people and we should all follow their example".
There's a point that you've referred to, without directly asserting it, yourself. That's the idea that Christianity spread quickly because of the goodness or virtue of it's proponents. Yeah, I take exception to that. We're all aware of how fast Islam spread (much faster than Christianity). But it does not necessarily follow in our minds that it spread because Muhammed was so exceedingly good. It would be more plausible to say it spread because Muhammed was excellent public speaker and rabble rouser. I'd go so far as to say that speaking well in front of a crowd is an even greater "virtue" for those who wish to lead than superior morals. I'm sure that applies to Peter and Paul as well. I'd like to talk in detail about why I think Christianity spread but that's another blog to even begin to do the topic justice.
In response to your 1st paragraph: There exist clergymen today who commit detestable acts against their fellow man. Nevertheless, most people try not to allow these crimes to influence their view of the faith in question. We like to take for granted the notion that the faith is guiltless in the sin, and that we are merely dealing with a flawed human who has simply "lost his way."
ReplyDeleteThat's a fair enough point, right? But can we apply the exact same thing to the founder(s) of a religion? Of course we couldn't. Any detestable or hypocritical acts committed by a religion's founder would only serve to discredit the legitimacy and integrity of the faith.
So, I wonder, where does your brother's reliance on historical data end, and his dependence on blind faith begin? Imagine if we were to discover evidence clearly demonstrating that Paul was just as corrupt as L. Ron Hubbard. Would your brother accept this evidence or simply shrug it off? What do you suppose other restorationalists would do?
In response to your 2nd paragraph: Ok, fair enough. I can appreciate the desire to raise a temple in honor of oneself.
In response to your 3rd paragraph: I was merely trying to take the Christian perspective into consideration. The Christian only has reason to assume that the early Church founders were as virtuous as humanly possible. Therefore, any attack on this assumption would come across as an attack on their integrity (I am NOT trying to imply that you were doing this).
In response to your 4th paragraph: The myth of Christianity is dependent upon them being more virtuous. It wouldn't matter if the elderly preacher down the street spent his free time stabbing and cannibalizing the small children of his congregation. This would have virtually no effect on the status of the religion. However, if Paul or the apostles were to do this, then any degree of legitimacy or integrity their religion might have had would be overshadowed by copious amounts of doubt (well, at least I think skepticism is how any reasonably intelligent person should response to such evidence).
In response to your 5th paragraph: I am guilty as charged. I fully admit I have no hard evidence to base my assumption on. Still, is it totally unreasonable to think that people around the ancient Mediterranean area, regardless of how stupid or illiterate most of them may have been, would have been so willing to accept the religion preached by a group of unrepentant sinners and criminals?
Furthermore, I never claimed the "goodness" of Christianity was the only factor contributing towards its excessive adoption rate. There are multiple factors each contributing by various degrees. The philosophical movement towards monolatrism and henotheism; The increased desire for a more personal relationship with the divine; The open membership (generally) to both Jews and gentiles - be them poor, women, or slaves; The easy access to Christian doctrine, especially when compared to the secrecy of the competing mystery cults; The ease of travel throughout the Roman Empire. Yes, there are many, many factors to consider.
"I'd like to talk in detail about why I think Christianity spread but that's another blog to even begin to do the topic justice."
I would like to hear your reasons.
So, when is John going to offer his input? I would love to hear his response.
I left a comment here last night, but apparently blogspot felt the need to make it disappear. Why does blogspot have to fail at simple tasks? Damn it!
ReplyDeleteIn response to your 1st paragraph: There exist clergymen today who commit despicable acts against his fellow men. Nevertheless, we do not blame the faith for the crimes committed by one follower. We tend to take for granted the notion that the faith is guiltless of the sin, opting instead to assume the deviant follower had simply "stumbled off the holy path."
ReplyDeleteWell, fair enough, right? But would we be able to take the same liberties with the founder(s) of a religion? Of course we wouldn't. Any despicable or hypocritical act committed by a religions founder would only serve to discredit the legitimacy and integrity of the religion.
So, I wonder, where does your brothers reliance on historical data end, and his dependence on blind faith begin? Imagine if we were to unearth evidence demonstrating that Paul was just as corrupt as L. Ron Hubbard. Would your brother accept this troubling discovery or simply sweep it under a rug? What do you suppose other restorationalists would do?
In response to your 2nd paragraph: Ok, fair enough. I can certainly appreciate the desire to raise a temple in honor of oneself.
In response to your 3rd paragraph: I was merely attempting to take the Christian perspective into consideration. The Christian has every reason to assume these people were as virtuous as humanly possible. Any attack on this assumption would come across as an attack on their virtuosity (I am NOT saying that you did this).
In response to your 4th paragraph: The myth of Christianity is dependent upon them being more virtuous. It wouldn't matter if the elderly preacher down the street spent his free time stabbing and cannibalizing the children of his congregation. This act would have virtually no effect on the status of his religion. However, if Paul or the apostles were to do the same thing, any degree of legitimacy or integrity their religion may have had would be overshadowed by copious amounts of doubt (well, at least I think skepticism is how any reasonably intelligent person should respond to a religion founded by detestable people).
In response to your 5th paragraph: I am guilty as charged. I have no hard evidence to base my assumption on. Still, is it totally unreasonable to think that the people around the ancient Mediterranean, regardless of how stupid or illiterate they may have been, would be so willing to accept the religion of unrepentant sinners and criminals?
Furthermore, I never claimed the "goodness" of Christianity and its founders were the only factors contributing to its excessive adoption rate. There are multiple reasons, each contributing by various degrees. The philosophical movement towards monolatry and henotheism; The growing desire for a more personal relationship with the divine; The open membership (generally) of Christianity towards both Jews and Gentiles - be them poor, women, or slaves; The ease of access to the teachings, especially when compared to the secrecy of the competing mystery cults; The ease of travel throughout the Roman Empire. Yes, there are many factors to take into consideration. There are many more than what I have listed here.
"I'd like to talk in detail about why I think Christianity spread but that's another blog to even begin to do the topic justice."
I would like to see this. I would also like to see John find some precious time to give a response.
In response to your 1st paragraph: There exist clergymen today who commit despicable acts against his fellow men. Nevertheless, we do not blame the faith for the crimes committed by one follower. We tend to take for granted the notion that the faith is guiltless of the sin, opting instead to assume the deviant follower had simply "stumbled off the holy path."
ReplyDeleteWell, fair enough, right? But would we be able to take the same liberties with the founder(s) of a religion? Of course we wouldn't. Any despicable or hypocritical act committed by a religions founder would only serve to discredit the legitimacy and integrity of the religion.
So, I wonder, where does your brothers reliance on historical data end, and his dependence on blind faith begin? Imagine if we were to unearth evidence demonstrating that Paul was just as corrupt as L. Ron Hubbard. Would your brother accept this troubling discovery or simply sweep it under a rug? What do you suppose other restorationalists would do?
In response to your 2nd paragraph: Ok, fair enough. I can certainly appreciate the desire to raise a temple in honor of oneself.
In response to your 3rd paragraph: I was merely attempting to take the Christian perspective into consideration. The Christian has every reason to assume these people were as virtuous as humanly possible. Any attack on this assumption would come across as an attack on their virtuosity (I am NOT saying that you did this).
In response to your 4th paragraph: The myth of Christianity is dependent upon them being more virtuous. It wouldn't matter if the elderly preacher down the street spent his free time stabbing and cannibalizing the children of his congregation. This act would have virtually no effect on the status of his religion. However, if Paul or the apostles were to do the same thing, any degree of legitimacy or integrity their religion may have had would be overshadowed by copious amounts of doubt (well, at least I think skepticism is how any reasonably intelligent person should respond to a religion founded by detestable people).
In response to your 5th paragraph: I am guilty as charged. I have no hard evidence to base my assumption on. Still, is it totally unreasonable to think that the people around the ancient Mediterranean, regardless of how stupid or illiterate they may have been, would be so willing to accept the religion of unrepentant sinners and criminals?
Furthermore, I never claimed the "goodness" of Christianity and its founders were the only factors contributing to its excessive adoption rate. There are multiple reasons, each contributing by various degrees. The philosophical movement towards monolatry and henotheism; The growing desire for a more personal relationship with the divine; The open membership (generally) of Christianity towards both Jews and Gentiles - be them poor, women, or slaves; The ease of access to the teachings, especially when compared to the secrecy of the competing mystery cults; The ease of travel throughout the Roman Empire. Yes, there are many factors to take into consideration. There are many more than what I have listed here.
"I'd like to talk in detail about why I think Christianity spread but that's another blog to even begin to do the topic justice."
I would like to see this. I would also like to see John find some precious time to give a response.
Ok. I don't get much of a kick out of restorationalists but for different reasons.
ReplyDeleteI don't see why we would want to go back in time to the struggling church. The truth was there and present but the forms were rough and tumble.
Sure there is a pleasant notion about brotherhood and egalitarian commune styles of living might appeal to some. There is also the thought that it would be cool to worship just as the immediate followers did....but I see that getting old quick.
Though I know my colleagues in blogging disagree, I believe the Church has evolved, learned and maintained a drive toward a perfection of Christ's will and teaching.
Jumping back before that we lose so much. Yes the essentials are all there, but we lose so many of the special graces we can be afforded now.
So I say dunk on them.
Matt: For almost all of your responses I either agree, or disagree only in such a small degree that it doesn't really seem worth it to nitpick.
ReplyDeleteI did want to respond to this, though: "Still, is it totally unreasonable to think that the people around the ancient Mediterranean, regardless of how stupid or illiterate they may have been, would be so willing to accept the religion of unrepentant sinners and criminals?"
Is that what I'm proposing? That the world of the classical mediterranean was so stupid they'd follow sinners and criminals? If I've given that impression, I sincerely apologise. I see now that it was a mistake to draw comparisons to Antony and the debauched Tiberius. It was unnecessary and done for comic effect.
To put an even finer point on this, I don't think it's necessarily a question of the morals of the apostles. As a hypothetical, if it was well documented that Peter was a bit of a stutterer, who had a tendency to slobber when excited, would that be enough to dissuade contemporary Christians and halt the progress of the movement? No, of course not. But, wouldn't that image take a bit of the sheen off of his modern, romanticised image?
John: Yeah I see what you mean. I would describe the appeal of that age as "innocence through lack of means". Later Christanity catches a lot of crap (well deserved) for the terrible things they did. But to a large degree, that's just a natural byproduct of human beings having access to power and means. Early Christians - regardless of how undefined the movement was how sloppy the message was - had no such power and means. You can't abuse power that you don't have.
ReplyDeleteSo, it can be easy to see the disenfranchised and powerless as being morally superior (American Indians DEFINATELY come to mind), when you have no way of proving what they WOULD have done, if circumstances had been different.
"Is that what I'm proposing? That the world of the classical mediterranean was so stupid they'd follow sinners and criminals?"
ReplyDeleteNo, I never thought that was your proposition. I was merely asking you a question.
I admit I have been too focused on the idea of the early founders having horrific skeletons in their closets. Yes, maybe Paul picked his nose in public and maybe Peter had a lazy eye? These would certainly be more realistic presumptions and would only serve to deteriorate the romanticized image of their persons.
But, really, who cares? None of these little anomalies would supersede the supposed virtuosity of the Christian founders. Absolutely nothing about Christianity would change. The restorationalists would not back off from their effort.
Actually, a rather interesting thought just came to mind. Perhaps the discovery of minor character flaws among the founders would actually serve to strengthen the efforts of restorationalists? Perhaps it would strengthen the resolve of Christians universally?
Think about it like this. The romanticized image of the founders is impossible for humans to emulate. However, if it were discovered that they had some minor character flaws, this would, of course, place them within a more humanized perspective. Perhaps such a portrayal could be encouraging to a Christian? I can imagine a Christian saying, "Hey, if he could achieve such greatness, than maybe I can do it too?"
Regarding your last two paragraphs: I agree. It's an interesting idea, and I think what would result would be a better, more well rounded model for the believer. Less idealized, more practical and suitable for everyday life. Not exactly a diminished or enhanced Christianity, but taking a slightly different shape. More grounded.
ReplyDelete