In Chapter 15 Gibbon examines the growth of Christianity in the Roman Empire and in Chapter 16 he looks at the treatment of Christians by emperors from Nero to Constantine, two interesting angles on an historical event. His observations are enlightening. One eye opener is that Gibbon is unwilling to invest much reliability in the accounts of vast numbers of Christians put to death by emperors. Yes, there were indeed some who hated the Christians and sought to harm them. Nero was quite obviously not a fan of Christians when he used them as fire lamps in his garden. But Gibbon prefers the more conservative estimates when calculating both the numbers of Christians that were in the empire as well as the numbers who were killed for their faith. Interesting approach.
In his examination of the growth of Christianity, he makes an interesting statement.
Our curiosity is naturally prompted to inquire by what means the Christian faith obtained so remarkable a victory over the established religions of the earth. To this inquiry, an obvious but satisfactory answer may be returned; that it was owing to the convincing evidence of the doctrine itself, and to the ruling providence of its great Author. But as truth and reason seldom find so favorable a reception in the world, and as the wisdom of Providence frequently condescends to use the passions of the human heart, and the general circumstances of mankind, as instruments to execute its purpose, we may still be permitted, though with becoming submission, to ask, not indeed what were the first, but what were the secondary causes of the rapid growth of the Christian church. (Chapter XV Part I)Get that? (It may not be easy, since Gibbon wrote back in the 1700's and is more eloquent than I.) To the question of how Christianity had such remarkable growth, he answers that the quite obvious answer is the "convincing evidence of the doctrine" and the fact that God, as the Author, would cause it to be so. That is "an obvious but satisfactory" answer. He goes on to say that it would, however, not likely be well received, so he goes on after this to examine "what were the secondary causes" of the growth of the Christian church. God, then, and His truth, were the First Cause. The rest are "Secondary Causes".
The two chapters, 15 and 16, are interesting, side by side. They present two parallel considerations on what caused the Church to grow ... or decline. And they are not what today's concepts would find acceptable. I suppose that's because they didn't have all the marketing plans and experts available, but who is to say? The two key components in the growth of Christianity were rigid rules and persecution.
Now, given the modern perspective, we can leap ahead and determine what Gibbon found on these two points. First, as we all know, a narrow-minded, ultra-conservative, rules-oriented church is going to repel rather than gather members. If you want to encourage growth and encompass more people, you need to be more inclusive, less narrow. What is it the political machines say today? You need a "bigger tent". I mean, isn't it obvious? And when it comes to persecution, clearly it's easier to make converts and encourage more inclusiveness if you're not fighting off pain and suffering. I mean, who wants to be part of a movement that is outlawed and due to be executed if caught? Clearly that would produce a minority effect, not growth. And, to be sure, the early Christian church under Rome enjoyed periods both of less narrow views and greater acceptability in the community as well as more narrow views and much persecution.
As it turns out, however, the Church appears not to have known what our modern perspective teaches us. According to Gibbon, history tells us that when the Church was the most rigid in its views, it grew the most, and when the Church was most persecuted, it grew the most.
The early Church was known for two things. First, it was known for the high integrity and character of its members. These people were law-abiding citizens working hard to be honest and diligent members of their communities. Second, they were adamantly opposed to the slightest hint of idolatry. They disconnected themselves from anything remotely linked to anything idolatrous. So when everyone else was wearing garlands for a festival, they would not because the garlands had been blessed by the gods. And when a family member died, they couldn't go to the funeral because there was always some prayer to the gods or the like. They were cut out of much of daily life because they refused to compromise on this point, so much so that they were eventually classified as "atheists" because they didn't believe in the gods and would have nothing to do with them. The result was that these hard-working, law-abiding, respectable citizens were at once loved and hated. And the persecutions they received for this narrow view were far reaching and sometimes fatal. All that was asked of them was that they would put a little incense on a deity's altar and they could go free. What did it matter? They didn't believe in that deity. Why not just do it and get away safely? But they couldn't and it cost them dearly.
We're told today that Christianity is not about rules. Maybe. We're told that if the Church is to survive the 21st century we're going to have to be less narrow and more inclusive. Perhaps. We're told that Christianity is not about doing the right thing, but about grace, so embrace the grace. Stop being "pharasaical". It's not about that! It's about love and mercy and grace. Yes, that's what we're told. But the principles of Scripture disagree, and so does history. Even today, while the more liberal churches seek the more "big tent" approach, they are in decline because according to those who leave, frankly, "If all behavior is acceptable and we're including everyone, why should I bother sticking around? What are you offering that's any different than the rest of the world?" While we are warned and threatened that our "narrow views" and "rigid rules" will cause disaster for the Church or, at least, for our own part of it, Gibbon and history seem to say the opposite -- that it is in the wide embrace of the world that the Church finds itself absorbed rather than distinct.
America could learn a lot from the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. They descended into luxury and licentiousness and killed themselves off. So are we. Today's church could learn a lot from the Christians of the Roman Empire. Strict adherence to Scripture and the embracing rather than shunning of persecution seem to be growth media rather than negative conditions for the Church. I've said before that I think there is a real persecution coming to American Christians. Based on the history of the Church and on the pages of Scripture, I would also have to say that, if it brings the advancement of the cause of Christ, "Bring it on!"
No comments:
Post a Comment