I found this interesting in a nerdy sort of way. Excerpts from Wikipedia’s entry for Celsus, a voice against Christianity under the Roman Empire. I stumbled onto Celsus while studying why it was that Paul said in 1 Corinthians 1:24-25 that Christianity was rejected by the Greeks. You can tell a lot about a thing by it’s enemies’ taunts can’t you? As you read, remember this is the era Christ was born into and in which the early Church was raised:
Celsus was a 2nd century opponent of Christianity, known to us mainly through the reputation of his literary work, The True Word (or Account), almost entirely reproduced in excerpts by Origen in his counter-polemic Contra Celsum of 248, seventy years after Celsus wrote. In that year...the atmosphere was full of conflict. Rome was celebrating the 1000th anniversary of its founding...Over against the state and the worship of the Caesar stood as usual the Christian ideal of A RULE AND A CITIZENSHIP NOT OF THIS WORLD (emphasis mine), to which a thousand years were but as a day. A supernatural pride was blended with a natural anxiety, and it was at this juncture that Origen brought to light again a book written in the days of Marcus Aurelius. Sometimes quoting, sometimes paraphrasing, sometimes merely referring, Origen reproduces and replies to all Celsus’ arguments.
Celsus opens the way for his own attack by rehearsing the taunts levelled at the Christians by the Jews. Jesus was born in adultery, and nurtured on the wisdom of Egypt. His assertion of divine dignity is disproved by his poverty and his miserable end. Christians have no standing in the Old Testament prophecies, and their talk of a resurrection that was only revealed to some of their own adherents is foolishness. Celsus indeed says that the Jews are almost as ridiculous as the foes they attack; the latter said the saviour from Heaven had come, the former still looked for his coming. However, the Jews have the advantage of being an ancient nation with an ancient faith. The idea of an Incarnation of God is absurd; why should the human race think itself so superior to bees, ants and elephants as to be put in this unique relation to its maker? And why should God choose to come to men as a Jew? The Christian idea of a special providence is nonsense, an insult to the deity. Christians are like a council of frogs in a marsh or a synod of worms on a dunghill, croaking and squeaking, “For our sakes was the world created”.
[In the end Celsus makes a final appeal to Christians in Rome] Come, he says, don’t hold aloof from the common regime. Take your place by the emperor’s side. Don’t claim for yourselves another empire, or any special position. It is an overture for peace. If all were to follow your example and abstain from politics, the affairs of the world would fall into the hands of wild and lawless barbarians (viii.68). [Where’ve I heard that argument before?] Conceding that Christians are not without success in business (infructuosi in negotiis), he wants them to be good citizens, to retain their own belief but conform to the state religion. It is an earnest and striking appeal on behalf of the Empire, which was clearly in great danger, and it shows the terms offered to the Church, as well as the importance of the Church at the time.
WHAT STRUCK ME: It’s interesting - not proof of any wrong thinking on it’s own but just interesting for now - how similar the modern American evangelical view of proper church and state relations is to Celsus’ view (his final plea for Christian involvement) and how dissimilar that view is to the early church’s. To put it more bluntly, Pat Robertson and many Christian friends of mine sound more like Roman atheists serving Caesar 2000 years ago than early Christians following a Christ crucified for sedition against the Empire. Why is that? Is it a bad thing? What do you think?
It looked like all was lost. There seemed to be no way this backward group of people called “Christians” could possibly thrive in the fashion forward culturally throttled city of Corinth. How’d a group of totally “irrelevant” losers pull it off, and why didn’t God choose people who were, well, not them? We’re looking deeper into 1 Corinthians 1:11-2:5 this week at IKON for some answers.
Check out ikoncommunity.com or call 615.794.2812 if you live in the Nashville area and would like directions or more info about IKON. Click over to IKON’s blog afterwards to join the discussion about this and more.
-----
I saw new independent film End Of The Spear last night - the true story of a missionary’s journey into the dense Amazon basin of Ecuador in hopes of making contact with a violent tribe of pagan warriors. The images of vast rain forest and stone age tribal living are beautiful and worth seeing on the big screen. The soundtrack is the only glaring weakness of the film for me, the formulaic orchestrations and CCM sounding closing credits song were distractions for me as a musician - actually causing me not to feel as much as I would have watching with no soundtrack at all. But if you see the film strain to listen beyond the Back To School Special music bed and you’ll hear, even see in action, a powerful argument for Christian non-violence against pagan enemies. (Pacifism, some might call it).
As the missionary at the center of the story prepares to embark on a trip into the savage jungles of Ecuador his son hugs him goodbye and asks if his father will shoot the notoriously brutal natives if they attack him. His dad quickly answers in profound simplicity, “We can’t shoot them. They’re not ready for Heaven yet...and we are.”
Amazing how this film spoke to me more potently the core principles and priorities of Christianity than sermons, theology books and hours of debate often do.
"Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:3)
Jesus lowers his body to the grassy hillside, his disciples squatting around him and leaning in. Splitting his gaze between them and the crowd of curiosity seeking Jews just over their shoulders, he crosses his legs and announces, “Blessed are the poor in spirit,”
How strange. How insensitive to any Jewish seekers of the Messiah on the mountain. This is his first opportunity after all to make a good impression, to win them over to his revolution, to persuade them into becoming citizens of his kingdom. Such an enormous number of potential converts too, a multitude of Jews seeking a Messiah to fall in step behind. Why start like this, with poverty? He might as well have said, “My empire is only for the weak, the helpless losers, for the worthless and powerless.”
And well, that’s what He meant.
There are two words for “poor” Jesus could have used in his first blessing here in Mathew 5:3. Pen¯es describes a man who works for a living but has nothing more than he needs, nothing left over once he’s fed, housed and clothed himself. He’s not rich but he’s not in need either. He has just enough but most of us with more than enough would still call him poor. Pt¯ochos, on the other hand, the word spoken by Jesus here instead, is a more brutal picture of poverty. Beggars are Pt¯ochos. Abject poverty. Nothing to their name. No skill or opportunity to change their situation either. Empty belly and no way to fill it. Naked body and nothing to sew for it. Crippled flesh and no hope of medicine. Pt¯ochos comes from the word pt¯ossein literally meaning to crouch or cower like a beggar, so debilitated and inept that survival comes only by pleading on their knees for the crumbs and coins of a benevolent stranger.
Many Jews would have grimaced at this would-be Messiah’s declaration. The true Messiah was prophesied as a king from the family of David. He would be the strongest warrior, part man and part God. His sword would be swift and swung at their Roman oppressors. His empire would be the greatest the planet had ever seen. And when it was established God’s chosen glorious pure people the Jews would rule at his right hand and judge their enemies. He certainly wouldn’t let in the beggars. The Messiah wouldn’t surround himself with fishermen and sinners. His kingdom would be for people like them, the one’s who kept the law, knew their family tree, the respected and faithful, the spiritually superior and pious. They’d earned it.
But Jesus doesn’t welcome into his empire the spiritually pen¯es who believe the only thing they need from the Messiah is His muscle. His empire is for the spiritually pt¯ochos – the hopeless helpless spiritual beggars on all fours convinced they need everything from Jesus. The spiritually destitute - tried it all and got nowhere, at the end of their tattered rope, panhandlers at the gates of heaven – the mountainside Messiah hands the keys to his empire to these.
Brian taught on Tuesday from 1 Corinthians chapter 1 where Paul is first kind (almost swarmy) and then spanks the church in Corinth heavily for being divided and divisive. He doesn’t argue against their fighting on the grounds that it’s bad for THEM, but because their fighting confused the message of Christ, misrepresented the character of Christ on the cross which was forgiveness, grace and mercy. How do we know today if our words are causing division that misrepresents God? Seems like something anyone who doesn’t like our words could claim against us doesn’t it?
One thing’s for sure, it’s OK to upset each other sometimes. Paul certainly is upsetting, threatening to bring a whip with him on his next visit to Corinith if they don’t start behaving. He certainly got upset with Peter when he griped him out publicly for being two-faced. Jesus called religious people names like blood sucking snakes (vipers) and rotten graves painted over to look better than they are. That’s certainly upsetting. So where’s the line? Is it drawn by motive and our internal condition? Is it drawn by a set of rules and regulations governing the exact vocabulary, place and time of our confrontations? Is it determined by how our words are perceived by those they’re spoken to? Is it measured by the end result only, whether or not the message or image of Christ is hurt by our words and conflicts?
I’ve been taught, “Before you speak ask yourself if it’s true, if it’s kind and if it’s necessary.” That’s the formula answer, one that will definitely err on the side of caution and probably keep us all out of trouble, but it just doesn’t hold up to scripture does it? If Jesus followed this axiom he wouldn’t have been nailed to a cross would He? People who don’t upset, who are always perceived as speaking kindly, aren’t crucified. Yes, Jesus and Paul seem to have frequently said what was perceived as unkind by the sometimes sensitive religious types like us? So when is it OK to upset and confront and when isn’t it? I don’t have an answer yet, but I got closer this morning reading these words:
JAMES 3:13-17 Who among you is wise and understanding? Let him show by his good behavior his deeds in the gentleness of wisdom.
14But if you have bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your heart, do not be arrogant and so lie against the truth.
15This wisdom is not that which comes down from above, but is earthly, natural, demonic.
16For where jealousy and selfish ambition exist, there is disorder and every evil thing.
17But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, unwavering, without hypocrisy.
