Alexamenos Is Faithful

Three things inspired the short story below:

1. One of my favorite books, Evangelism in the Early Church by Michael Green. In that book, there is the drawing of the graffiti above, found in the barracks of the imperial pages in Rome and dating from the third century. We don't know the details around it (Wikipedia page here), but I've always thought that it was the response of a young Christian's converts friends as they mock him. 
2. A conjecture from The Hidden Romance of the New Testament by James Alexander Robinson, where the author makes a pretty good case for John Mark's house being the upper room of the Last Supper and for Mark himself being the youth who fled the Garden of Gethsemane. 
3. A speculative short story by my friend Jim Slagle at Agent Intellect called Witness, which I can't seem to find the link to any longer. If I remember correctly, that story was about an old Christian condemned to die in the arena who learned from another who sat at the feet of John the brother of Jesus. 

Alexamenos Is Faithful 

There, scratched on the wall, is the accusation and insult: A figure worships at the foot of the cross, and on the cross, a man with a donkey’s head. It is said among the Romans that the Jews worshiped the head of an ass within the most holy part of their temple before Emperor Titus overthrew it. Beneath the imagery, the words, “Alexamenos worships his god.”

Rufus, Aquila, and the other boys are sniggering, watching my reaction.

So, this is how it feels to be a Christian?

Before I know what is happening, my eyes are filled with tears. Rufus’ face is filled with a wordless hatred. This is what you get for your betrayal, he says in a look. I grab my master’s equipment from the closet and then back to the door. The boys make way, but slap my head and holler as I run through. I have never been so humiliated!

***

Later that night, when I am at Phoebe’s house, I share what has happened to the group. The elder Pantenaeus speaks up, “You know, Alex, my grandmother told me about a story that she heard from the Evangelist Mark when he was here in Rome. He was a young believer, just as you are. He knew Jesus Himself, and even followed Jesus and His disciples into the garden on the night that Jesus was betrayed. When the soldiers came, Mark fled naked in his haste to get away. Mark knew Peter and the other apostles very well, and the church would often gather at his house in Jerusalem. Later, Mark went with Paul and Barnabas on their first journey into Asia, but turned back for fear. You see, he was willing to tell this to everyone to encourage them that it is normal to fear. What is important is that we overcome our fear, and the only way we can do that is through love.”

“You love your friends still. Don’t give up! Remember what Jesus said on the cross, ‘Father, forgive them, for they know not what they are doing.’ Later in his life, Paul came to rely on Mark again and called him here to Rome to be with him in Paul’s last days. And Peter himself insisted Mark include the story of his denial into his gospel. What is important is how we end.”

“Love overcomes. Stay the course and continue to show kindness to your friends. Pray for them so that when you look into their eyes, they cannot deny that you mean them well. I fully believe that God will reveal who He is through you.”

***

(Six month later)

“Alexamenos is faithful.” That is the new graffiti written inside the barracks for the imperial pages. And it is written by Rufus, now not only my friend since childhood but my brother in Christ. 

Social justice in the Old Testament: Debt cancelation

[This is an exerpt from a book I'm writing on social justice in the Old Testament.]

The seventh-year Sabbath taught another aspect of God’s merciful salvation: debt forgiveness. While their land enjoyed a Sabbath rest, Moses required the Israelites to forgive the debts owed them by fellow Israelites.

At the end of every seven years you must cancel debts. This is how it is to be done: Every creditor shall cancel the loan he has made to his fellow Israelite. He shall not require payment from his fellow Israelite or brother, because the LORD’s time for canceling debts has been proclaimed. You may require payment from a foreigner, but you must cancel any debt your brother owes you.[1]

Because they were prohibited from charging interest on loans made to their countrymen, the Israelites already had a disincentive to lend money to those who needed it. But, the Sabbath year demanded even more, requiring the Israelites to not only offer interest-free loans, but to completely cancel the debts at the end of the Sabbatical cycle of years. From a natural, individualistic perspective, this command seems grossly unfair. Interest-free loans seem indulgent by most standards, but interest-free loans with a high likelihood of default are nonsensical in any time and place. However, as recipients of God’s abundant grace, the Israelites were obligated to extend extraordinary grace to weak and vulnerable groups in their own society.

Moses continued, warning the Israelites from feigning an inability to lend.

If there is a poor man among your brothers in any of the towns of the land that the LORD your God is giving you, do not be hardhearted or tightfisted toward your poor brother. Rather be openhanded and freely lend him whatever he needs. Be careful not to harbor this wicked thought: “The seventh year, the year for cancelling debts, is near,” so that you do not show ill will toward your needy brother and give him nothing. He may then appeal to the LORD against you, and you will be found guilty of sin. Give generously to him and do so without a grudging heart; then because of this the LORD your God will bless you in all your work and in everything you put your hand to. There will always be poor people in the land. Therefore I command you to be openhanded toward your brothers and toward the poor and needy in your land.[2]

These verses reveal the moral principle behind the command to cancel debts. As with the commands concerning day laborers, gleaning, and the tithe, Moses put the command to lend freely in the context of the Israelites’ relationship with God. They were debtors to God, and must likewise forgive debts owed them. Rich and poor alike, all Israelites understood they were indebted to God. Not only had He rescued them from their Egyptian slavery, but He had also provided a covering for the sin that separated them from Himself. God prescribed elaborate sacrifices meant to illustrate the atonement of people’s sin. Blood, representing life, was the required payment for sin in most cases.[3] Because of these sacrifices, the sin that separated them from God was removed. Therefore, the Israelites alone among all people on earth could claim to have a God that dwelt in their midst in the form of the tabernacle, and later, in the temple in Jerusalem.

All this ritual was designed to demonstrate the indebtedness of the Israelites and their rescue from that debt by God. This debtor-savior relationship required the Israelites to relate to one another accordingly, including rescuing their brother or sister who fell into poverty with free loans cancelled every seven years. More than a thousand years later, Jesus repeatedly drew the same lesson, teaching, “Freely you have received, freely give,” “Give and it will be given to you,” and “Forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.” Jesus most fully illustrated the obligation of the debtor in His parable of the unmerciful servant: A servant owed his master an exceedingly large amount of money. Graciously, the master forgave the debt entirely, saving the servant from ruin. However, the servant went on to meet one of his fellows who owed him a small sum and inflexibly demanded a prompt repayment. On hearing of this injustice, the master of the first servant grew incredibly angry and threw the first servant into prison until he should pay back every penny of his original debt.

In the same way, in light of their covenant relationship to God, the Israelites cancelled loans on the seventh year out of obligation, not charity. Charity implies giving when otherwise not required. But, only God is in the position to extend that type of free grace. As debtors themselves, Israelites who skirted the command to provide for those in need practiced injustice. Failing to provide for the poor was a positive offense against God and a breach of the covenant. Moses reminded the Israelites that if they failed in this regard, the poor could legitimately expect God to take up their cause against those who did not lend, not to mention cancel debts at the end of seven years.

---

[1] Deuteronomy 15:1-3

[2] Deuteronomy 15:7-11

[3] God made an exception for poor people who could not afford the more customary goat, lamb, or pair of doves: “If, however, he cannot afford two doves or two pigeons, he is to bring as an offering for his sin a tenth of an ephah of fine flour for a sin offering.” A tenth of an ephah is about one-tenth of the amount of grain that Ruth gathered in her first day at Boaz’s field.

[This post is an excerpt of my work-in-progress book on social justice in the Old Testament. Feedback is welcome! More on Learning to Do Right.] 

Christians as prophetic mediators for society

[This is an exerpt from a book I'm writing on social justice in the Old Testament. Read the previous entry here.]

Not only do Christians advocate biblical positions out of principle, but they also do so because they believe that society will prosper and have peace when adhering to God’s standard of justice and fairness. Christians believe that God promises blessing for societies that follow His principles and punishment for those that reject those principles. A primary motive of Christian political advocacy, therefore, is a genuine concern for the general welfare of society. This concern is what led Charles Finney, a 19^th century American revivalist, to exhort his church congregants to join in an effort to repeal the Fugitive Slave Bill, which required citizens of Northern U.S. States to aid in the capture of fugitive slaves:

Have not all Christian men political duties to perform? Ought they not to search out these duties, and settle in the fear of God all the great questions they involve, and then meet their political responsibilities in the fear of God and for the welfare of the nation?^[1]

According to Finney, Christians under democratic systems must not only attempt to understand political questions, but dispassionately and reverently measure the laws and policies of their government against the biblical standard of justice and righteousness and then advocate for the appropriate political change. The motive of this advocacy is twofold: the reverence of God as the true arbiter of right and wrong (“the fear of God,” as Finney writes), and also the peace and prosperity of society (“the welfare of the nation”).

In this sense, Christians in modern democracies have a responsibility similar to Old Testament prophets as prophetic mediators between God and society.[2] God sent these prophets to warn the Israelites—and sometimes, other nations, such as in the case of Jonah and the Ninevites—against immorality and injustice. Nearly every prophetic book in the Old Testament included some warning to society accompanied by a call to repentance and reformation. In one memorable example, in Ezekiel 22:23-29, God speaks through the prophet condemning the violence and injustice that permeated Israelite society at that time. Then, in verses 29-30, God says:

I looked for a man among them who would build up the wall and stand before me in the gap on behalf of the land so I would not have to destroy it, but I found none. So I will pour out my wrath on them and consume them with my fiery anger, bringing down on their own heads all they have done, declares the Sovereign LORD.

God says He looked for someone to stand up against immorality and corruption, and against the injustice perpetrated by leaders and common people alike against the most vulnerable elements of society—in this case, the poor and needy and foreign immigrants. God sought a mediator between Himself and society would work to right these wrongs by warning the Israelites and reminding them of the law given to Moses and principles of justice laid out therein. This mediator’s purpose was to avert the retributive justice of God on the nation. Jonah plays this mediator role to the Ninevites, who were the most powerful nation on the earth at the time, feared by all for their ruthlessness. An Israelite, Jonah reluctantly preached a warning message in the city of Nineveh itself with surprising success:

On the first day, Jonah started into the city. He proclaimed: “Forty more days and Nineveh will be overturned.” The Ninevites believed God. They declared a fast, and all of them, from the greatest to the least, put on sackcloth. … When God saw what they did and how they turned from their evil ways, he had compassion and did not bring upon them the destruction he had threatened.[3]

The idea that God visits judgment on nations for injustice was expressed eloquently by President Abraham Lincoln in his second inaugural address, given near the end of the Civil War. Instead of vilifying Southerners and blaming the Confederacy for the costliest and bloodiest war in American history, President Lincoln repented for the terrible evil of slavery on behalf of the nation and admitted that the national suffering was an appeasement of divine justice. Because the United States had failed to repudiate slavery, despite the efforts of prophetic mediators like Charles Finney, God was exacting what His justice demanded.

Yet, if God wills that it [the Civil War between the Union and Confederacy] continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”[4]

God does not demand retribution, but He demands justice; if there is no justice, then He will bring a just retribution. The Bible consistently depicts God as a righteous and holy Judge who is simultaneously gracious, ready to extend compassion to those who repent and turn from evil. As He said through Ezekiel, “I looked for a man among them who would build up the wall and stand before me in the gap on behalf of the land so I would not have to destroy it.” By advocating policies that adhere to the “true and righteous judgments of the Lord,” as Lincoln put it, Christians cooperate with God in seeking to avert a just retribution upon society. This retribution is not necessarily supernatural, but can be understood to mean the very natural results of egregious inequality and injustice—a breakdown in family relationships, numbed consciences, loss of civility, increased crime, vigilantism, worker strikes, social unrest, and even civil war.

The Book of Judges describes what happened in Israelite society when they abandoned the principles of justice and righteousness laid out in the law given to Moses. Very often, skeptics point to the outrageous injustices portrayed in the Book of Judges as evidence against biblical morality. Because these episodes of fratricide, kidnapping, rape, and mass murder are in the Bible, skeptics blithely assume that God sanctions such actions. However, the Bible includes these tragedies to illustrate the natural consequences for society when it deviates from God’s law. God did not desire Israelite society to tear itself apart in this way—quite the contrary! Appropriately, the last verse of the book reads, “In those days Israel had no king; everyone did as he saw fit.”[5] The inference is that charismatic leadership was not enough; the Israelites needed a just government to enforce God’s principles of justice and righteousness.[6] The example of Judges is contrasted with the Book of Ruth that follows, an uplifting story set during the same period. The Book of Ruth shows how some exceptional communities still adhered to the Mosaic law by providing for the poor and needy in society.

[This post is an excerpt of my work-in-progress book on social justice in the Old Testament. Feedback is welcome! More on Learning to Do Right.] 

---

[1] Charles Finney, August 1852, Guilt Modified by Ignorance,  http://www.gospeltruth.net/1852OE/520818_guilt_ignorance.htm

[2] Of course, Christians have this role to play only because of Jesus’ unique work. As 1 Timothy 2:5-6 reads: “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time.”

[3] Jonah 3:4-5, 10

[4] Abraham Lincoln, March 1865, Second Inaugural Address, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln2.asp

[5] Judges 21:25, also repeated in 18:1 and 19:1.

[6] Deuteronomy 17:14-20 describes a king who follows the law of God in his personal conduct and in his rule.

An alternative example: Celtic Christianity

[Continued from How Christianity became aligned with politics under Constantine.]

Perhaps things could have gone differently. Saint Patrick’s mission to the Irish in the fifth century gives a glimpse into what might have been possible had Christians under the Roman Empire resisted the temptation to align themselves with an earthly government and operate according to the principles of the world. A Celt who lived under Roman rule in Britain, Patrick was abducted by marauders as a youth and spent years as a slave swineherd in the fields of Ireland. In his solitude, he formed a close fellowship with God through constant prayer. Eventually, he escaped and found passage back to Britain, became a priest, and returned to Ireland on a holy mission to spread the gospel in that land. Thomas Cahill, in his How the Irish Saved Civilization, writes how he and his converts helped to transform Irish society:

With the Irish—even with the kings—he succeeded beyond measure. Within his lifetime or soon after his death, the Irish slave trade came to a halt, and other forms of violence, such as murder and intertribal warfare, decreased. In reforming Irish sexual mores, he was rather less successful, though he established indigenous monasteries and convents, whose inmates by their way of life reminded the Irish that the virtues of lifelong faithfulness, courage, and generosity were actually attainable by ordinary human beings and that the sword was not the only instrument for structuring society.[1]

Patrick’s non-violent, politically unadulterated, and courageously resolute message subdued the wild, warlike, and druidic Irish who the Romans could not conquer. Cahill compares the conversion of Ireland with that of the Roman Empire and argues that while Christianity transformed Irish society, Roman society transformed Christianity:

Through the Edict of Milan, which had legalized the new religion in 313 and made it the new emperor’s pet, Christianity had been received into Rome, not Rome into Christianity! Roman culture was little altered by the exchange, and it is arguable that Christianity lost much of its distinctiveness. But in the Patrician exchange, Ireland, lacking the power and implacable traditions of Rome, had been received into Christianity, which transformed Ireland into Something New, something never seen before—a Christian culture, where slavery and human sacrifice became unthinkable, and warfare, though impossible for humans to eradicate, diminished markedly. The Irish, in any case, loved physical combat too much for inter-tribal warfare to disappear entirely. But new laws, influenced by Gospel norms, inhibited such conflicts severely by requiring that arms be taken up only for a weighty cause. Ireland would not again see a battle on the scale of the Tain till Brian Boru would rout the Vikings in the eleventh century.[2]

Roughly a century after the death of Patrick, Ireland had been conquered by Christianity operating according to principles of submission and service and Irish monks began spreading peaceful, apolitical, and non-conformist Christianity in a Europe.[3] For several centuries, these monks infiltrated the barbarian tribes that had overrun the Roman Empire. The growing number of monasteries they established confounded regular church authorities with the number of converts that flocked to them. In these places of refuge, converts found a Christianity that was not only unique from the old order of Roman culture and political power but also radically different than the Germanic paganism of tribal kings. These monasteries were truly “cities on hills which could not be hidden.” Sadly, by the seventh century, unorganized Celtic Christianity was nearly entirely subsumed into the hierarchical Roman church.[4]

[This post is an excerpt of my work-in-progress book on social justice in the Old Testament. Feedback is welcome! More on Learning to Do Right.]

---

[1] Thomas Cahill, pg. 110, How the Irish Saved Civilization

[2] Cahill, pg. 148

[3] Cahill, pg. 151, “Ireland is unique in religious history for being the only land into which Christianity was introduced without bloodshed.”

[4] Nora Chadwick, in her history The Celts, eulogizes: “The disappearance of the idiosyncratic Christianity of the Celtic Church was inevitable, owing to the absence of central organization; but it is impossible to reach the end without a feeling of regret. A Christianity so pure and serene as that of the age of saints could hardly be equaled and never repeated.”

How Christianity became aligned with politics under Constantine

In 313 A.D., the role of Christians in society started to change. In that year, the Roman Emperor Constantine gave official sanction to Christianity for the first time and afterwards gradually added official state support, including building churches and sponsoring the production of biblical books. While Christians saw this turn of events as miraculous, especially as it came on the heels of one of the most brutal persecutions in history, it may have simply been a shrewd political move on the part of Constantine to secure support from the growing number of believers as he struggled to gain sole control of the empire. Whatever his motives, the official sanction of Christianity changed the dynamic between Christians and society. Whereas before, becoming a Christian meant ridicule, suspicion, and the potential for real harm, it now meant gaining not only an acceptable but even favored status. The change of status for Christian bishops was even more extreme—their position, once fraught with danger, began to entail power and authority in the secular realm.

One of the adverse effects of this conjoining of church and state was that it became difficult to distinguish between political and spiritual authority. Church leaders sometimes wielded political power, and sometimes political leaders exercised power over the church. Once he gained control of the empire, Constantine convened church councils deciding major theological doctrines, including the council of Nicaea in 323 A.D. Eventually, in 381 A.D., the Emperor Theodosius made “Catholic Christianity” the official religion of the Roman empire and aligned bishoporics with political territories in the Roman empire so that there was one governor and one bishop for the province of Asia, for example. Soon after, pagan worship was suppressed, and in 385 A.D., the newly Christian government for the first time executed Christians that deviated from the government-endorsed orthodoxy.

Roman coin (c. 350 A.D.) showing the military standard first adopted by Emperor Constantine containing the Chi-Rho, or the first two Greek letters of Christ.

In less than 80 years, the church persecuted by the state morphed into the state-sponsored persecuting church. How could such a thing happen? The Christians who experienced Constantine’s Edict of Milan and those who came after forgot that God’s kingdom and earthly kingdoms exist on two separate planes. Though an earthly government is hostile to Christianity, it cannot hinder the advancement of God’s kingdom as long as the church operates according to the principles of the kingdom. By following the commands of Jesus to submit and serve, Christians can overcome every obstacle. In his first epistle, Peter wrote to the persecuted church in the Roman province of Asia, telling them: “Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men, whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right … However, if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God that you bear that name.”[1] Christians in the early church understood that when they submitted to earthly authorities, they were in fact submitting to God who instituted those authorities, and that they would overcome even as they suffered persecution.

In the euphoria following the Edict of Milan, faithful and well-intentioned Christians such as Eusebius of Caesarea hailed Emperor Constantine as a savior. At the very end of his Ecclesiastical History, finished in 324 A.D., Eusebius describes the consolidation of the Empire under Constantine and the resulting elevation of the Christian religion:

But the mighty and victorious Constantine adorned with every virtue of religion, with his most pious son, Crispus Caesar, resembling in all things his father, recovered the East as his own, and thus restored the Roman Empire to its ancient state of one united body. … All fear, therefore, of those who had previously afflicted the Christians was wholly removed. They celebrated splendid and festive days with joy and hilarity. All things were filled with light, and all who before were sunk in sorrow, beheld each other with smiling and cheerful faces. With choirs and hymns, in the cities and villages, they celebrated and extolled first of all God the universal King, because they thus were taught, then they also celebrated the praises of the pious emperor and with him all his divinely favored children. There was perfect oblivion of past evils, and the past wickedness was buried in forgetfulness. There was nothing but enjoyment of the present blessings and expectation of those yet to come. Edicts were published and issued by the victorious emperor, full of clemency, and laws were enacted indicative of munificence and genuine religion.[2]

Official support from the most powerful empire in the world led believers to believe that the cause of Christ had won a tremendous victory. Certainly, Christians could be excused some relief and even elation that the Roman Empire which crucified Jesus now claimed to submit to him. However, these Christians could not foresee the ramifications of aligning their faith with a particular political identity (in this case the Roman Empire). They could not foresee how the state church would create official dogma out of simple creeds stating apostolic faith, or how the church would eventually burn heretics who refused to submit to that dogma. When bishops of apostolic churches agreed to align their sees with political jurisdictions, they failed to understand how that would one day give rise to hierarchical church leadership headed by patriarchs in Rome and Constantinople. The apostolic churches that served together as stewards of tradition and orthodoxy could not imagine that consensus and appeal to Scripture would one day yield to monarchal rule by church patriarchs—that the term “catholic” would no longer denote allegiance to universally accepted doctrine but instead allegiance to doctrine promulgated by the bishop of Rome. The Christians who won converts through their bravery in martyrdom would have recoiled at the thought of crusades against infidels claiming hundreds of thousands of lives.

Despite their good intentions, the Christians who celebrated Emperor Constantine’s support identified the kingdom of God with an earthly government and thereby lost the uniqueness that distinguished them from the rest of society. Instead of living as though they looked forward to the coming of God’s kingdom, they started living as though that kingdom was already established here on earth. Using its unprecedented freedom and power, the church began subjugating pagan religions and eventually coercing allegiance to the Christian faith.

[This post is an excerpt of my work-in-progress book on social justice in the Old Testament. Feedback is welcome! More on Learning to Do Right.]

---

[1] 1 Peter 2:13-14, 4:16

[2] Eusebius of Caesarea as translated by C.F. Cruse, Ecclesiastical History, Book 10, Chapter 9:6-8 

How the early church related to society

The early Christians who lived before Emperor Constantine understood what it meant to be salt and light and to operate according the principles of God’s kingdom. They stood in stark contrast to the rest of Roman society. Whereas it was common practice for pagans to abandon their unwanted infant children, leaving them to die in the wilderness or trash heaps, or to take strong drugs to abort their unwanted unborn babies, Christians not only disapproved of such practices but even actively rescued abandoned children and took them into their homes. They refused to take part in public celebrations of cruelty and debauchery. The Epistle to Diognetus, a Christian apology written sometime toward the end of the second century, describes the unique role of Christians in society in dramatic terms:[1]

For Christians are no different from other people in terms of their country, language, or customs. Nowhere do they inhabit cities of their own, use a strange dialect, or live life out of the ordinary. They have not discovered this teaching of theirs through reflection or through the thought of meddlesome people, nor do they set forth any human doctrine, as some do. They inhabit both Greek and barbarian cities, according to the lot assigned to each. And they show forth the character of their own citizenship in a marvelous and admittedly paradoxical way by following local customs in what they wear and what they eat and in the rest of their lives. They live in their respective countries, but only as resident aliens; they participate in all things as citizens, and they endure all things as foreigners. Every foreign territory is a homeland for them, every homeland foreign territory. They marry like everyone else and have children, but they do not expose them once they are born. They share their meals but not their sexual partners. They are found in the flesh but do not live according to the flesh. They live on earth but participate in the life of heaven. They are obedient to the laws that have been made, and by their own lives they supersede the laws. They love everyone and are persecuted by all. They are not understood and they are condemned. They are put to death and made alive. They are impoverished and make many rich. They lack all things and abound in everything. They are dishonored and they are exalted in their dishonors. They are slandered and they are acquitted. They are reviled and they bless, mistreated and they bestow honor. They do good and are punished as evil; when they are punished they rejoice as those who have been made alive. They are attacked by Jews as foreigners and persecuted by Greeks. And those who hate them cannot explain the cause of their enmity.[2]

To use Jesus’ analogy, the Christians described in this passage were like a city on a hill that could not be hidden. To society, the way in which they lived seemed paradoxical. They lived peaceably everywhere, following local customs and laws, but refusing to murder their children or participate in licentious behavior. They fulfilled all their civic duties, but remembered that they were foreigners in this world and citizens of the God’s kingdom. Moreover, as representatives of the kingdom of God, they operated according to the principles of submission and service—even if it meant death. Because of their unique message and shining examples, an increasing number of people from across all spectra of society came to have a transforming relationship with Jesus.[3]

Following the example of Jesus, these early believers avoided identifying the Christian faith with political movements and nations. In 66 A.D., possibly just several years after the martyrdom of Peter and Paul in Rome and before the close of the New Testament canon, Jews in and around Jerusalem rebelled against Roman authority, provoked by the sacrilegious actions of the procurator Florus. Jewish Christians refused to join in the rebellion and fled the city before Roman legions under Vespasian and Titus besieged and finally destroyed it in 70 A.D. These Christians followed the teachings of Jesus, who taught that the kingdom of God was established through submission and service, not by subjugation and coercion. They remembered Jesus’ words recorded in the gospel, “Those who live by the sword will die by the sword.”

Throughout the second and third centuries, Christian apologists reasoned with Roman authorities that Christianity taught people to live as peaceable, submissive, and even patriotic citizens, and therefore posed no threat their rule. These Christians understood that God’s kingdom is not established in opposition to earthly kingdoms. Sometime around 150 A.D., Justin Martyr appealed to Emperor Antoninus Pius:

And everywhere we, more readily than all men, endeavor to pay to those appointed by you the taxes both ordinary and extraordinary, as we have been taught by Him; for at that time some came to Him and asked Him, if one ought to pay tribute to Caesar; and He answered, ‘Tell Me, whose image does the coin bear?’ And they said, ‘Caesar's.’ And again He answered them, ‘Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.’ Whence to God alone we render worship, but in other things we gladly serve you, acknowledging you as kings and rulers of men, and praying that with your kingly power you be found to possess also sound judgment.[4]

Again, in 176 A.D. or 177 A.D., Athenagoras wrote to Emperor Marcus Aurelius:

For who are more deserving to obtain the things they ask, than those who, like us, pray for your government, that you may, as is most equitable, receive the kingdom, son from father, and that your empire may receive increase and addition, all men becoming subject to your sway? And this is also for our advantage, that we may lead a peaceable and quiet life, and may ourselves readily perform all that is commanded us.[5]

Tertullian, writing in 197 A.D., described the prayers offered for the empire:

Without ceasing, for all our emperors we offer prayer. We pray for life prolonged; for security to the empire; for protection to the imperial house; for brave armies, a faithful senate, a virtuous people, the world at rest, whatever, as man or Caesar, an emperor would wish.[6] [7]

Even as they grew more numerous, Christians refused to operate according to the principles of subjugation and coercion by seeking political power. Later in the same apology cited above, Tertullian said that Christians were by then numerous enough to topple the Roman government that persecuted them simply by withdrawing from society, but that they instead helped to maintain Roman rule:

We are but of yesterday, and we have filled every place among you—cities, islands, fortresses, towns, marketplaces, the very camp, tribes, companies, palace, senate, forum—we have left nothing to you but the temples of your gods. For what wars should we not be fit, not eager, even with unequal forces, we who so willingly yield ourselves to the sword, if in our religion it were not counted better to be slain than to slay? Without arms even, and raising no insurrectionary banner, but simply in enmity to you, we could carry on the contest with you by an ill-willed severance alone. For if such multitudes of men were to break away from you, and betake themselves to some remote corner of the world, why, the very loss of so many citizens, whatever sort they were, would cover the empire with shame; nay, in the very forsaking, vengeance would be inflicted. Why, you would be horror-struck at the solitude in which you would find yourselves, at such an all-prevailing silence, and that stupor as of a dead world. You would have to seek subjects to govern. You would have more enemies than citizens remaining. For now it is the immense number of Christians which makes your enemies so few—almost all the inhabitants of your various cities being followers of Christ.[8]

These examples shed some light on how Christians in the first three centuries practiced a peaceful type of insurrection, one not directed against the Roman empire but against sin and rebellion in the human heart. They corrected identified their enemy, which was not flesh and blood, but rather evil spiritual powers and sin that held people captive. By following the principles of submission and service they overcame their true enemy while winning over their human persecutors. As Tertullian wrote at the end of his apology, “The oftener we are mown down by you, the more in number we grow; the blood of Christians is seed.”[9]

By living as illuminating examples of God’s righteousness and justice, these Christians helped to preserve society. Again, Tertullian argued that Christians acted as mediators between God and society by the virtue of their lives and their prayers. He wrote: “And, for all that is said, if we compare the calamities of former times, they fall on us more lightly now, since God gave Christians to the world; for from that time virtue put some restraint on the world's wickedness, and men began to pray for the averting of God's wrath.”[10]

[This post is an excerpt of my work-in-progress book on social justice in the Old Testament. Feedback is welcome! More on Learning to Do Right.]

---

[1] An apology is a “defense of the faith,” defending Christianity as true and good against its critics.

[2] Epistle to Diognetus 5:1-17, Bart D. Ehrman, The Apostolic Fathers, Vol. 2

[3] Read Paul’s letter to the mixed church at Colosse to see how people from all backgrounds set an example for society. Colossians 3:11 reads “Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, but Christ is all, and is in all.”

[4] Justin Martyr, First Apology, Chapter 17

[5] Athenagoras, A Plea for Christians, Chapter 32

[6] Tertullian, Apology, Chapter 30

[7] 1 Timothy 2:1-2 specifically teaches, “I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession, and thanksgiving be made for everyone—for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.”

[8] Tertullian, Apology, Chapter 37

[9] Tertullian, Apology, Chapter 50

[10] Tertullian, Apology, Chapter 40

Jingoism vs. the love of God

I had heard about the Back to Jerusalem (BTJ) movement when I read The Heavenly Man, an account of the ministry of Brother Yun in China. Today, I came across an article on BTJ in the Washington Post and couldn't help but see the stark contrast between how Chinese Christians view the Islamic world and how U.S. Christians view the Islamic world.

Chinese Christian missionaries are training for jobs in Muslim lands, learning Arabic, and relocating their families to these areas in order to build churches and train disciples. There is no word among them about the threat of Muslims in China or elsewhere. No doubt they would strongly condemn terrorism and have no affinity for extremists such as Al Qaeda, but if they do, that's not the story they lead with. You never feel that these Christians view Islam as a threat or Muslims as enemies. Instead, the only sense you get is that these people feel deeply the love of God for the lost. They are acting as true salt and light to the world.

Compare that with much of the alarm among U.S. Christians that Islam is taking over the Western world. Legislation barring Sharia Law in Oklahoma (what the heck?!), rumors that the President is covertly a Muslim, and threats to burn the Koran are the most extreme examples of this alarm. If U.S. Christians do acknowledge the need for evangelism to the Muslim world, they do so only quietly after catching their breath, having wasted it screaming about the Islamic threat. It's hard to imagine these people conceiving a vision similar to BTJ. They certainly are not salt and light as Jesus described.

In my opinion, the basic difference between Chinese and U.S. Christians in how they view the Islamic world is the definition of the kingdom of God. Instead of framing their worldview in terms of the universal kingdom of God against a general world system (selfishness, hatred, and rebellion against God), they conflate the kingdom of God with earthly kingdoms, much as Christians did after the Emperor Constantine embraced Christianity in 312 A.D. Many U.S. Christians conflate Christianity with America, democracy (as long as it doesn't elect Hamas or the Muslim Brotherhood), Second Amendment rights, and capitalism. This is wrong and unbiblical.

Roman coin (c. 350 A.D.) showing the military standard first adopted by Emperor Constantine containing the Chi-Rho, or the first two Greek letters of Christ.

Jesus was clear about his distinction apart from the Roman emperor, the king Herod, the Sanhedrin, and every other worldly governmental power at the time. When cross-examining Jesus to determine if he was guilty of sedition, the Roman governor Pilate asked if Jesus claimed to be a king. Jesus replied, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.”

What Jesus understood, and many U.S. Christians do not, is that God’s kingdom is uniquely over and above, and not in competition with, any earthly kingdom. God’s kingdom is not in opposition to worldly kingdoms because they exist on different planes. Later when Pilate asked Jesus, “Don’t you realize I have the power either to free you or to crucify you?” Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above.” All authority belongs to God, and there is no earthly authority that God has not established. The rise and fall of governments and nations will always be in God’s hands. In contrast to the impermanence of worldly governments, God’s kingdom even today continues to expand and brighten, like the rays of the sun breaking at dawn, and no power, earthly or spiritual, can stop it.

Jesus warned against salt that lost its flavor and against light hidden under bowls. When Christians cannot distinguish between the kingdom of God and the kingdoms of this world then they mistakenly believe that God favors one nation over another, or one political party over another. They compromise their unique message by thinking “It’s my country, wrong or right” or otherwise excusing the ways in which their nation or party deviates from God’s standard of righteousness and justice. They self-servingly highlight scriptures from the Bible that support their partisan viewpoints while ignoring or misinterpreting those that might undermine their ideology.

Moreover, they see the success of their nation or party as the success of God’s kingdom—and see their rivals as opposed to God’s kingdom. This view leads Christians to label nations or political opponents as “heathen” or as opposed to the kingdom of God. But, if they do that, then they misidentify their enemy. As Paul wrote, “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.” Like Jesus, Paul emphasized the otherworldliness of God’s kingdom—that it was not set up in opposition to earthly kingdoms, but rather existed on a completely different plane over and above them.

Writing a new book on social justice in the Old Testament

So I've been working on a new book examining the principles of social justice in the Old Testament. The first couple chapters are pretty much done (see the first chapter below) and I've got some good idea of what the next four or five chapters will consist of. So far, I've been writing it on the bus to and from work and at nights (with our new baby daughter in the bouncer beside me). If you have any experience self-publishing a book, please give me ideas! My goal is to create something that I'll be proud of and that will add something to our collective understanding of God's principles of justice and righteousness, and the Christian role in advocating those principles.
The Unique Role of Christians in Society

Early Christian history: In a mirror, darkly

Israeli authorities have uncovered a Christian meeting place possibly dating from the third century, which would make it one of the earliest "churches" to have been discovered. Christians didn't have churches as we know them today, those edifices began to be constructed after the Emperor Constantine officially sponsored Christianity around 320 A.D.

Among the evidences that the building predates Constantine is the use of the fish symbol (which I also use to mark my blog) that was used to signify Christianity. In Greek, the first letters of the words in the phrase "Jesus Christ, God's Son, Savior" form the word for fish, Ichthys. One of the mosaics found in the building also tell of a woman who donated a table used for Christian ceremonies. It is believed early Christians used tables instead of altars.

Interestingly, I'm reading letters and writings of early church leaders right now, including Ignatius' letters to the churches as he was on his way to Rome and the Didache. It all sounds scholarly, I know, but actually these are fairly short works.

Some noteworthy things I've noticed:
1) There is definitely a place for apostles, prophets, bishops (pastors), and teachers, though I have yet to read any mention of an evangelist. Deacons and presbyters (elders) are also mentioned frequently in Ignatius' letters.
2) "Widows" are still a big deal, and the church is also to provide for prophets, apostles, and those that teach, though slaves are not to desire to have their freedom bought through the common fund.
3) There is a heavy emphasis on Jesus' humanity by noting his mother, Mary, and Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor under whom Jesus was sentenced. But I found no evidence that Mary was venerated as in Roman Catholic teaching.
4) A lot of the teaching centers on Jesus' Sermon on the Mount, where we get famous quotes such as "Love your enemies" and "Give, and it will be given to you" and the Beatitudes.
5) Ignatius emphasizes the authority of the bishop in each city, and even says the Eucharist (or Communion) should not be administered without his consent. This should not be a basis for Catholic practice, however, because it is clearly in the context of maintaining unity in the church and as a measure against divisive persons.

All in all, it's extremely cool stuff. I don't think we should form doctrine according to these writings, but it is helpful to inform us.