PDF 
As readers of this fine publication may know, I am a passionate apologist for the Christian faith. It is unfortunate that this seems to bring out so many irrationally smug and arrogant atheists, but what are you going to do. The atheists that I cannot abide think religion, and specifically Christianity, is a cancer, a mental derangement only for the weak who “cannot handle the truth!” The only contribution Christianity brought to history and society according to these types is the pathological. Of course, to any objective observer Christianity has brought an astounding number of positives to the world.
This was on my mind as I recently finished watching the first season of the Starz Channel series “Spartacus.” The series is definitely not for the squeamish, or those easily offended by the salacious depiction of Roman debauchery, maybe not even for those not so easily offended. But it is a powerful depiction of the pagan Western world prior to the advent of Christianity, and as impressive as Roman civilization was at the time, it was nightmare for those who were not Roman citizens.
If you lived within the empire and you were not a citizen you were pretty much chattel, property to be used as your owners thought best (and you’ll be happy to know that slavery had nothing to do with skin color). In fact you were not really considered human at all, but just another animal to be used for the pleasure or convenience of your master. And in “Spartacus” there was plenty of both.
As I was watching the show, I was wondering what the Western world would have looked like if Christianity had remained a small Jewish sect stuck in Palestine, if the Apostle Paul had continued to persecute and kill Christians and never taken a trip to Damascus. As you may know it was Paul, formerly Saul, who was the “Apostle to the Gentiles,” the one tasked by the risen Jesus to spread the Gospel to the ends of the earth. At that time, the ends of the earth pretty much meant the boundaries of the Roman Empire, but as we now know it literally meant the entire globe.
I’m sure many have speculated about this scenario over the years, as a short Google search will show, but we can never affirm the uniqueness of the Christian faith and its contribution to the Western world enough. The juxtaposition of Roman culture to that of the spreading Christian Church is stark, as light is to dark, day is to night and as up is to down. Just a cursory reading of the Gospels will tell you that. One could take this in an infinite variety of ways, but I’ll take just one: Women.
Even though Roman women had certain rights, they were still property of their husbands. I don’t know if in Roman law they were considered actual property, but clearly they did not have the equal rights of men. Women who were not Roman citizens, well let’s just say they didn’t live pleasant lives. Now compare this with how Jesus treats women, which was the beginning of a sea change in the status of women in Western culture.
To start with, God chose a woman to birth his son. Jesus treated women with utmost respect and in a manner no one around him could predict. A few examples: One is found in John chapter 4. Here John describes Jesus making his way through Samaria and having a conversation at a well with a Samaritan woman. For some historical reasons Jews did not associate with Samaritans (as blacks and whites in Jim Crow south might not), yet here was Jesus bringing salvation to a Samaritan town through a woman who had been divorced five times and was living with a man not currently her husband. Jesus broke down barriers and brought salvation, not judgment.
Another is the powerful story of the woman caught in adultery in John chapter 8. The Pharisees and teachers of the law trying to trap Jesus brought to him a woman who had been caught in the act of adultery (that they would not bring the man tells you all you need to know about the Jewish culture of the time). According to the Law of Moses, they said, such a woman must be stoned. Imagine a bunch of self-righteous angry men standing around with rocks ready to inflict just punishment on a defenseless woman (the scene portrayed in Franco Zeffirelli’s “Jesus of Nazareth” is electrifying). But Jesus completely confounds them with a Solomonic response: Let him among you without sin cast the first stone. They couldn’t condemn her, nor would Jesus.
Another wonderful story is found in Luke chapter 7. A Pharisee invites Jesus over for dinner. A woman in town “who had lived a sinful life” learned of Jesus’ visit, bought an alabaster Jar of perfume (likely not inexpensive) and somehow made her way into the gathering. She wept at Jesus feet and wiped his feet with her hair and poured the perfume on them. This scandalized the Pharisees and likely everyone else in attendance, but not Jesus. He forgave her sins and used her as an example of the appropriate worship due the Son of God.
There are many other examples, but I find it interesting that the only followers of Jesus at his crucifixion were women, with the lone male exception being John. Women were also the first to see him risen from the dead, and it was a woman who told the disciples that Jesus had risen. I believe the testimony of a woman at the time was not legally valid, yet Jesus used a woman to testify to his resurrection. And women were prominently utilized in the ministry of the early Church.
If the book in which these stories are found was solely the product of men who lived in a stratified culture completely dominated by men, one would not expect to find women treated in such a way. When you think about the culture out of which the book was written, such a presentation of women was revolutionary.
Yet even with all of this and with the Apostle Paul telling husbands they should love their wives as Christ loved the Church (i.e. live sacrificially and die if necessary for them), it still took the Christianity almost 2000 years to fully see women as Jesus did. Although I would wager that women, among many other things, would not have fared as well if Christianity had never existed.
Oh, my… Where to start?
You wrote: “Even though Roman women had certain rights, they were still property of their husbands. I don’t know if in Roman law they were considered actual property, but clearly they did not have the equal rights of men. Women who were not Roman citizens, well let’s just say they didn’t live pleasant lives. Now compare this with how Jesus treats women, which was the beginning of a sea change in the status of women in Western culture.”
Um… I suppose that’s why a traditional Christian wedding includes the phrase “Who gives this woman to this man?” Or why so many “Christians” still speak of the “man” as the “authority” in the house, and rather god-like.
But here’s what’s really goofy about your post: even in so-called “Christian” nations, it took women centuries upon centuries to establish their basic rights — and yet you attribute this to Christianity? Then why did it take nearly 2,000 years?
Where were these “Christian’s women’s rights” during witchcraft trials, for example?
I look forward to the Starz channel special on the Spanish Inquisition.
actually we(gentiles) were first officially filled with the spirit at the occasion of Cornelius, with Peter,(Acts10) Paul only claimed that position.
[...] Pagans aren’t the only ones who create incomplete or mythic images of our ancient past, Christian apologists are very fond of the exercise as well. “I recently finished watching the first season of the Starz Channel series “Spartacus.” [...]
I would just like to say unto thee christian, Romans may have caused a few issues and been ignorant with their rule, but you live in a society that operates exactly the same. Anywhere in the west enslaves the rest of the planet for thier person gain and way of life. Why do millions of people make less then $1 a day? To support walmart and other corporate entities.
Another thing you can think about is how any of the three main religions revolving around jesus have been responsible for 75% of the wars in the last 2000 yeras. If the main population of the world had of remain pagan the world would have been a better place, look at the reign of the adoptive emperors, all pagan and peaceful! They brought the world together! It was the christian (poor) sect that destroyed anything of value in the ancient world.
My old challenge remains — name me a culture, anytime in history, that ever abolished slavery that was not a) Christian, or b) under pressure from Christian nations.
And the world record for state-sponsored murder remains on the mantle of atheist governments. By a huge margin.
This is my favorite line in this rant: “To start with, God chose a woman to birth his son.”
Who else would a god have been able to use? Since only women give birth, a woman would have been used to give birth.
I guess I need to say to the very shallow among us, that yes, I understand that “Spartacus” is fully Hollywood and not an accurate historical picture of what actually happened in Rome (I actually more enjoyed the more realistic portrayal in HBO’s “Rome” a few years ago). Nonetheless, it was a blood drenched pagan society, that treated many people as property. Anti-Christian bigots will do anything to distort and not address what is actually being said.
The ignorance of said bigots never ceases to amaze me.
‘Um… I suppose that’s why a traditional Christian wedding includes the phrase “Who gives this woman to this man?” Or why so many “Christians” still speak of the “man” as the “authority” in the house, and rather god-like.’ Oh, where to start? If you had any knowledge whatsoever of the Bible and Christian theology you couldn’t make such massively ignorant statements. Too much to address this silliness in a comment.
As for women’s rights, what other culture outside of the Christian West even had a concept of rights, let alone women’s rights? Without a Creator, as Thomas Jefferson knew, the very concept of rights makes no sense. Does it stump you that thousands of years of civilization and male dominated culture took a very long time to change? Do yourself a favor, read Paul Johnson’s “A History of Christianity” to see how intertwined the faith became with the state, and how many lives were taken because of states and power plays, not Christianity.
Jeff, “Rant” is defined thus: “to speak or declaim extravagantly or violently; talk in a wild or vehement way; rave.” It’s very hard to take seriously someone who cannot even trouble himself to use the English language accurately. So I won’t.
Mike I too am a believer but come on you have to concede that point to jeff. Who else was God going to have give birth to Christ? There are a few horribly worded arguments but Jeff’s was simple and effective.
Be a man and admit your mistake
Nahom, I don’t think it’s accurate to call my statement a mistake. You and Jeff may think it’s obvious and thus pointless to make the statement, because it is women that give birth, after all. But Mary wasn’t just a birth mother, in case you’ve missed the last 2000 years of Church history. It doesn’t appear to me, and especially doesn’t appear that way to Catholics, that Mary was some afterthought, because how else could Jesus come into the world.
Maybe you and Jeff should read Luke chapter 1 again, which Jeff has probably never read (I speculate, I know, but people who throw around the word “rant” to disparage people they disagree with don’t get much respect from this corner). Let me share a few verses here from Luke 1 for those who might be allergic to an actual bible:
The angel went to her and said, “Greetings, you who are highly favored! The Lord is with you.”
Mary was greatly troubled at his words and wondered what kind of greeting this might be. But the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary; you have found favor with God. You will conceive and give birth to a son, and you are to call him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over Jacob’s descendants forever; his kingdom will never end.”
“How will this be,” Mary asked the angel, “since I am a virgin?”
The angel answered, “The Holy Spirit will come on you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. So the holy one to be born will be called the Son of God. Even Elizabeth your relative is going to have a child in her old age, and she who was said to be unable to conceive is in her sixth month. For no word from God will ever fail.”
“I am the Lord’s servant,” Mary answered. “May your word to me be fulfilled.”
At that time Mary got ready and hurried to a town in the hill country of Judea, where she entered Zechariah’s home and greeted Elizabeth. When Elizabeth heard Mary’s greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit. In a loud voice she exclaimed: “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear! But why am I so favored, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy. Blessed is she who has believed that the Lord would fulfill his promises to her!”
In case I have to spell it out, which I obviously have to, God didn’t just choose any woman with a womb. He chose, as God is want to do, a specific woman, Mary of Nazareth, and he exalted her by allowing her to carry his Son because she believed in the promises of God. And notice God didn’t go through a man in this utterly patriarchal society to accomplish his will. For gosh sakes, in 2011 a woman in Saudia Arabia, and many other Arab countries has to have her husband’s permission to drive a car!
So Nahom, my friend, I freely admit my mistakes. Ask my wife and children. I make them often. But in this case, with maybe a bit more clarification, I cannot admit of one in this case.
wow….talk about misdirection…
We aren’t talking about how important Mary’s story is, nor are we talking about the special circumstances it took for Mary to get pregnant. We are talking about the simple fact that you misspoke and stated:
“To start with, God chose a woman to birth his son.”
The fact that you seem to want to dance around that fact leads me to believe that any discussion about the rest of your posts are pointless to say the least.
Also the way your present your arguments (with obvious intent to piss off atheists) leads me to believe your a new believer. One who is obviously seeking attention. Its very apparent you don’t understand the message of grace shown by Jesus throughout the 4 gospels. He faced much more adversity then either of us will face yet did not change his demeanor.
*just something to think about, oh and don’t bother responding to my message as I wont be back to read this page.
Even though you won’t be back, I’ll comment for the record. I see your point (don’t faint). God obviously couldn’t choose a man. OK. Fine. Point taken. God still chose to exalt a woman in the birth of his son in a culture that tended not to do such things. So next time I write this piece I’ll say it more accurately and artfully.
And I don’t write “with obvious intent to piss off atheists”. Atheists are just easily pissed off, and most atheists I’ve come across on the great World Wide Web are jerks. Any time someone seeks to defend Christianity or claim its exclusivity or superiority they can’t stand it. I don’t claim all atheists are like this, only ones who seemed motivated to respond to pieces like mine and denigrate the Christian faith every chance they get.
And I only wish I was a new believer, then I would be 32 years younger! No, I understand grace well enough, because without it, and God’s mercy, I have no hope.
And Jesus didn’t change his demeanor? Seriously? You’d best read your New Testament more carefully.
Nahom, though Mike’s wording of this one point initially was unclear, certainly the idea he meant to convey is as he has said here in his response to you. A more gracious and reasoned response from you would have made a better case for you than the “gotcha” attitude you have conveyed here. Plus, to focus all your attention on one instance of poor wording in an article that gives multiple instances of evidence for the essay’s thesis is in itself an obvious case of misdirection and a failure to confront the real subject matter.
S.T. to the rescue! Great points, Sam. The way Jesus treated women was completely anomalous in the ancient Greco-Roman and Hebrew world, and the early church carried that on. Without this foundation rooted in the created order the ancient world would have never produced the modern world, which includes the rights and equality of women. That’s my story, and I’m stickin’ to it!
Thinking about alternaive histories can be fun but it should not, I think, be confused with true knowledge. There is an interesting collection of essays, Pagan monotheism in late antiquity edited by Polymnia Athanassiadi and Michael Frede, that argues (to me convincingly) that Europe was moving in a monotheistic direction even without the Christian impetus. If that had become widespread, and if it was imbued with, say, the ethics of stoicism, it would have been a grand and good thing. What actually would have happened had Christianity never arisen none, of course, can say.
P.S. It is not at all clear to me that the way Jesus is said to have treated women was at variance with Jewish society of his time.
Shmuel, I couldn’t agree more. Those of us who bring up such topics usually do it because hard core atheists are fond of attributing all kinds of evil to the Christian faith and its role in history. If they were more balanced and less vitriolic maybe there would be little motivations for such ruminations.
You could certainly be right about Jewish society at the time. If the New Testament accounts are accurate, as I of course believe they are, then certainly the Jewish religious leaders of the time viewed women as second class citizens. I would guess that because of the Torah and Jewish religious teaching that Jewish culture would have viewed women more equitably than Roman culture.
It so happens I just read the following quote from Anthony Daniels in National Review about this subject, and he says it very well:
“Contemporary militant atheists treat religion as if it consisted solely of the Spanish Inquisition and the stoning of adulterers. That its history has included things that are inimical to a liberal order is undeniable; but to treat them as the whole of its contribution is like treating the history of medicine as nothing but amputation without anesthetic and the employment of Perkins’s metallic tractors.”
Jewish society in the time of Jesus was patriarchal, of ocurse,but no more, i think, than Jesus himself. All of his apostles were men, after all. If Jesus had adopted some radically different stance, the gospel writers would, in all likelihood, have recorded the objections that were raised.
I think that society without catholicism would have been more similar to ancient Rome. That is: more classism, more sexism, more gambling, prostitution, robberies, murders, and polygamy.
Well, I always think that Christianity’s biggest contribution is uniting Europe during the Middle Ages and bringing Middle Eastern (Rome included)’s wisdom and influence to the dark lands.
Without Christianity, well, I think Europe will still be tribal after the fall of Rome, because they’re still divided by their pagan faiths. Faith is quite a divider.
It’s true that the real Europe is also divided by kingdoms, but at least they have a kinship in Christianity and able to work together, shown in the Crusade.
But I’m no historian XD.
and sadly, such good teachings are always mixed up by politics D: