The Rhetoric of the 99% and the Rise of Christianity
One of the arguments frequently used by apologists is that Christianity must be true because there is no other plausible explanation for the rise and rapid spread of the Jesus cult except for the resurrection. This argument is a favorite of William lane Craig. It is apparently so compelling that even Anne Rice found it an impetus for faith until the obvious malfeasance of the Catholic Church drove her away.[1]
Given the number of religions in the world, and the fact that they persist even after they have been demonstrated to be fraudulent, it would seem that the rise of a religion hardly requires much attention. People join religions; they believe in demonstrably false propositions; we need not fret over their motives.
Given the number of religions in the world, and the fact that they persist even after they have been demonstrated to be fraudulent, it would seem that the rise of a religion hardly requires much attention. People join religions; they believe in demonstrably false propositions; we need not fret over their motives.
However,
our interlocutors will not be so easily dismissed, and we would be remiss if we
did not indulge them somewhat in their effort to shift their burden of proof.
To
that end, I would like to offer an alternate hypothesis (not necessarily original)
to the rise of the Jesus movement—one that requires no supernatural
shenanigans: The Jesus movement thrived because it was psychologically and
socially appealing to the great multitude of the oppressed within the Roman
Empire. While it in no way offended the religious sensibilities of pagan
believers, with its virgin birth and dying and rising god, it did offer an
attractive economic philosophy—a subversive economic ideology which, at least
initially, offered distributive justice, an anti-rich rhetoric and the promise of a great reversal in the
afterlife.
The
“Empty Tomb” argument is often presented with implicit or explicit subordinate
claims about the great risk involved in believing in Christ. Apologists claim
that the persecution of the Church was so great that only sincere conviction
(and the breath of the Holy Spirit) are sufficient to explain its appeal.
As is
the case today, claims about Christian persecution are highly exaggerated. Whether
fairly or not, the Christians soon became unpopular and occasionally, the Roman
populace as well as officials used violence against them. However, it appears
that Rome was not initially enthusiastic in its pursuit of the Jesus cult. This is best demonstrated in the letter between Roman emperor Trajan and Governor Pliny the Younger circa 112 C.E. in which the emperor advises a policy of passive enforcement;
Christians are not to be pursued and should only be prosecuted if, having come
to the attention of imperial officials, they
refuse to worship the gods. As Candida Moss as documented, persecution of the
Church was in fact sporadic, even as Christians eagerly sought sanctification
through martyrdom.
More importantly, the first documented instance of
persecution begins in 64 C.E. under Nero who scapegoated the unpopular minority
for his own crimes. Let us note that this is three decades after Jesus’s
putative appearances, and most of the followers at this point would not have
been the alleged 500 eyewitnesses of the resurrection but rather those who
became persuaded of the event though evangelization. They would be no different than a Christian
today who, having heard of the Gospel, became persuaded. This type of
conversion in no way contributes to our knowledge of whether the resurrection
was an historical event.
Whatever persecution the Christians suffered at the
hands of the Jews, it is unlikely that it is as Acts 7 depicts because the
Romans would not have permitted a conquered people to employ capital
punishment. A fact the Bible confirms as it attempts to explain how the Jews
were responsible for Jesus’s Roman execution (John 18:31).
Therefore, it seems that at most the first generation
of Christians might have faced the disapprobation of their neighbors. They
still call that persecution in the Bible Belt but I am not sure that it counts.
The early Church drew its ranks from the less
reputable members of society—the poor, slaves, women; these had little to lose
in esteem (1 Corinthians 1:26). Those who had the most to gain from joining the
movement. The Church offered a community and a message that appealed to them.
Luke records that the earliest Christian practice
radical redistribution of wealth:
All the believers were one in
heart and mind. No one claimed that any of their possessions was their own, but
they shared everything they had. With great power the apostles continued to
testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so
powerfully at work in them all that there were no needy persons among them. For
from time to time those who owned land or houses sold them, brought the money
from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone
who had need.
Joseph, a Levite from Cyprus, whom the apostles
called Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”), sold a field he owned and
brought the money and put it at the apostles’ feet (Acts 4:32-37)
Luke goes on to emphasize how serious it was for a wealthy member of the
community to withhold portions of their wealth from the apostles:
Now a man named Ananias, together
with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. With his wife’s full
knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and
put it at the apostles’ feet.
Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is
it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit
and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn’t
it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at
your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied
just to human beings but to God.”
When Ananias heard this, he fell
down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened (Acts
5:1-6).
Fearful indeed. Undoubtedly, both the claims of the perfectly equitable
distribution of resources as well as those of divine punishment ought to be
viewed with some skepticism. They are surely romanticized. You can dodge the
tithe and live!
Nonetheless, there is probably much truth in Luke’s telling. The early
Christians probably strove for economic equality and those who failed to do so
probably faced some Earthly consequences. This was an important aspect of early
Christianity.
As late as 251 C.E., a man named Anthony walked into a church and
heard these words attributed to Jesus, "If you want to be perfect, go,
sell what you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasures in heaven;
and come, follow Me" (Matthew 19:21). He considered it a personal
commandment, did so and became an ascetic.
I can personally testify to the generosity of many of
the Churches that I have belonged to when I have needed it and how being the
recipient of such generosity strengthens one’s commitment to the church.
Thus, it is highly plausible in an empire in which 30%
to 40% of the population were in bondage and in which wealth was
disproportionately held in the hands of a few, that the dispossessed found not only
a place to satisfy the pecuniary needs but also a place where they found solidarity
in their afflicted state.
For the Church not only offered some level of economic
security for the poor, but a rhetoric of class warfare that surely pleased this
audience. They heard the Church’s leadership preaching sayings of Jesus like the
following:
But Jesus said to them
again, “Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for
a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter
the kingdom of God” (Matthew 10:24-25).
In his epistle James writes, “Listen,
my beloved brothers and sisters. Has not God chosen the poor in the
world to be rich in faith and to be heirs of the kingdom that he has promised
to those who love him? But you have dishonored the poor. Is it not the rich who
oppress you? Is it not they who drag you into court? Is it not they who
blaspheme the excellent name that was invoked over you?” (James 2:5-6).
Surely, music to the ears of the 99%.
Someone, please, send the producers of Fox News a Bible.
Lastly, the earliest Gospels—the
synoptic Gospels—preached not salvation by faith but salvation by charity and
what the Catholic Church rightly calls, the preferential option for the poor.
According to Matthew’s Gospel, this
is how Jesus will decide who gets into Heaven:
“When the Son of Man
comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on the throne
of his glory. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate
people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and
he will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. Then the
king will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, you that are blessed by my
Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for
I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to
drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me
clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited
me.’ Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when was it that we saw you
hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when
was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you
clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?’ And
the king will answer them, ‘Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the
least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.’ Then he will
say to those at his left hand, ‘You that are accursed, depart from me into the
eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you
gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a
stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing,
sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer,
‘Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or
sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?’ Then he will answer them,
‘Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you
did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the
righteous into eternal life” (Matthew 25”31-46).
Moreover, if you happened to have
been poor in this life; if you watched the rich indulge in conspicuous and
excessive consumption, fear not, justice is coming. When the rich man, who
found himself in Hell for failing to be charitable to the beggar at his door,
asked for a drop of water, Abraham said this to him:
“Child, remember that during your
lifetime you received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner evil things;
but now he is comforted here, and you are in agony” (Luke 16: 24-25).
This is a message that would have
surely resonate with many in the first century and continues to resonate to
this day.
That a man died and rose from the
dead might be received as an amusing oddity, even intriguing proposal but not
necessarily motivating. When Paul preached resurrection to the Athenians, they
rebuffed him (Acts 17: 16-34).
But that God will bring economic justice
is an ideology many people can rally behind, even if it is inconveniently
packaged in talking snakes and substitutionary atonement.
0 comments:
Post a Comment