Book Review - The Christians as the Romans Saw Them - Robert Louis Wilken

Here's a quick review of the book The Christians as the Romans Saw Them by Robert Louis Wilken.

The Gist

Wilken doesn't write as a Christian apologist, nor an antagonist, he is a historian and is charitable toward Christianity.  This book is a survey of the critics of Christianity, he believes that by understanding Christianity's critics we can understand the development of Christianity better.  He surveys the criticisms of five major critics of Christianity - Pliny, Galen, Celsus, Porphyry and Julian the apostate.  The gist of their criticisms, in my humble opinion, is that Christianity was a threat to the social and religious order of the empire.

The Social/Political Threat

This one came in others, but it is mostly spoken of by Pliny.  The Romans were nervous about the development of any kinds of associations, no matter the purpose.  These associations at times were used to foment political and social disorder.  Thus, the Christians, with their secretive ways and allegiance to a God above the empire were considered a threat to the social and political stability of the empire.

The Religious Threat

Here's a quote about Celsus that hints at the religiosity of the Romans and the threat Christians posed.

Celsus sensed that Christians had severed the traditional bond between religion and a "nation" or people.  The ancients took for granted that religion was indissolubly linked to a particular city or people. Indeed, there was no term for religon in the sense we now use it to refer to the beliefs and practices of a specific group of people or of a voluntary association divorced from ethnic or national identity.  The term "could speak of a particular system of rites (a cult or an initiation), or a particular se of beliefs (doctrine or opinions), or a legal code, or a body of natoinal customs and tradtitions; but for the perculaiar synthesis of all those whihc we call a 'religon' the one Hellenistic word which came the closest was 'philosophy.'"  The idea fo an association of people bound together by a religous allegiance with its own traditons nad belifs, its own history, and its own way of life independent of a particular city or nation was foreign to the ancients.  Religion belonged to a people, and it was bestowed on an individual by the people or nation  from whihc one came or in which one lived.  "Piety lay in a calm performance of traditional rites and in a faithful performance of traditional standards."

Apologetic Challenges

One of the great things about this book is that it shows that pretty much all of the apologetic challenges Christians have faced through the years were present in the first few centuries of the church's existence. So this gives some good historical perspective on the challenges the church always faces.

One of the most helpful things for me in this book was the extended discussions on religion. The Romans considered themselves to be a very religious people, albeit their religion looked a lot more like Rousseau's civil religion.  But, from the Romans point of view, they were not irreligious secular people being imposed upon by the Christians, they were a devout and religious people, and the Christians were threatening the peace and purity of their religious traditions.

At least here in America, and maybe the west in general, apologetics have usually been directed against issues of unbelief and irreligion, seeking to persuade the atheist there is a God and He is the Christian God.  In Rome, the Christians were considered the atheists, and were considered harmful. With the great shift in western Christianity, society is now much more favorable to religion and the criticisms of Christianity in our day will take on more of the flavor of Roman criticisms back then.

A Word About What the Book Doesn't Say

Wilken purposely focused on the critics of Christianity.  He has written another book called The Spirit of Early Christian Thought which surveys the early Christian writers.

My only concern in this book is that you could come away with impression that the empire was united against the Christians.  I don't think Wilken intends us t think this, again remember that he is surveying the thought of five major critics over a period of 400 years. 

If Rodney Stark is correct in The Rise of Christianity, we can believe that there were many upper class and well-placed people in the Roman empire who supported the Christian church.  Thus, these critics are not representative of the whole of the empire.  Remember, the other side of the coin is in Wilken's other book.

But it is also true that theology is usually formed in opposition to error, or perceived error and development rides on the tensions between a group and its antagonists.  Thus, though this work is one sided it is important for understanding early Christianity.

Who Is It For?

Although it is published by Yale Press it isn't too academic. Most anyone can read it with profit.  Amateur historians who love history but don't have the time to read the primary sources will benefit greatly from this as he does a good job of quoting, summarizing and explaining some of the important primary sources.  And of course those with a deeper interest can find some pointers in where to go to further their studies.

Also, I highly recommend this for anyone in ministry or for the Christian who wants a greater understanding of their family history and the controversies that shaped and continue to shape the church.

Technorati tags: Religion, theology, history, church history, Christian, Christianity, church, early church, Roman Empire, books

Comments

[Jeremy Pierce]

My favorite parts were the arguments that Christians would undermine the social fabric of the Roman empire due to their immoral behavior: human sacrifice (they eat a human being at their fellowship meals) and incest (they marry people they refer to as "brother" and "sister")!

[Ken]

Don't forget Atheism, because Christians refused to acknowledge the gods of Rome.

(Jews had a special dispensation under Roman law, but once Christianity split from Judaism, that dispensation no longer applied.)

[Jeremy Pierce]

Yes, Socrates was an atheist too, because he didn't accept the immoral behavior of the gods in the myths.