So we all survived the 2012 apocalypse, right? Hands up if you didn’t. My theory is that the various prophecies were misinterpreted, and actually referred to the destruction of Nibiru. Maybe.
Anyway, since very few of us were transmogrified into three-headed yaks or somesuch on the 21st, the 25th inevitably happened, and with it came the usual flood of discussion among my friends concerning the place of Christians in contemporary Western society. This kind of brought some thoughts I’ve been having about my own faith into sharper focus. For you see, I am a Christian. But I am also a Classicist. There. I’ve outed myself.
I have encountered remarkably few people in academia who practise a religion of any sort. I guess it comes with the territory– let’s face it, at most Australian universities, orthodox religion is a dirty word. I get a mix of reactions when I disclose my religion to others. Some are amazed, some are aghast, some are dismissive, some are simply uncomfortable. Some are disgusted. I can understand that. Many of the things my fellow Christians say and do leave me disgusted too. Tell people you’re a Christian, and they’ll often automatically assume you’re a spiteful, hateful, anti-intellectual bigot. Many will think you’re a Bible-bashing simpleton. There are many Christians who are all these things, so I get why people might think that. But… I’m not. At least, I try not to be. For me, the first obligation of being a good Christian is that of a good human being: to be ethically beneficent.
Anti-Christian sentiment seems to be particularly strong in the fields of Classics and Ancient History. I suppose that this occurs for a few reasons. Our field is based heavily upon archaeology, which rarely if ever supports Biblical narratives, Genesis least of all. Moreover, the field of Classics is heavily based upon the criticism of ancient texts. In pursuit of historical truth, we go out specifically looking for inconsistencies, errors and discontinuities in our primary sources. The Bible is riddled with inconsistencies as an historical text. A lot of us interested in the history of religion can see how much Christianity has borrowed from religions of Antiquity in terms of its theology and institutions. Knowing the human origins of these things makes it difficult to uphold them as divinely inspired. But most of all, I think Classicists often despise Christianity because Late Antiquity, the period in which Christianity became the state cult of the Roman Empire, was a step backwards in so many different ways. (Incidentally, I think Christianity itself was only partly to blame, despite what Gibbon will tell you). Moreover, Christians actively engaged in the persecution of… well, so many people, actually. But in particular, Christian Proselytism and religious extremism harmed Jews, Pagans, and fellow Christians. That’s right, folks, nobody was better at persecuting Christians than Christians. If you don’t believe me, look into the way Arianism was dealt with.
These things are all true. I would be foolish to deny them. Also, it would be dangerous and irresponsible to deny the role that religion continues to play in human conflict, and in the suppression of minorities today. As a community, we have a lot to answer for, and answer we should. I cannot claim personal responsibility for what the entire Christian community does, or has done, but I can take responsibility for my own actions and the way they impact upon others.
You would think that my training as a Classicist would deter me from my faith. I will confess, the Christian Classicist has a difficult path to tread, not least of which because we face ridicule by our peers, and often by fellow Christians. We also have to reconcile our faith with our ability to reason. That is not by any means impossible. If anything, I hope that my training as a Classicist has aided me as a Christian.
It has given me a sufficient grounding in history to realise that a lot of what the Bible says is specific to its times and places. Believe it or not, that helps a great deal, as it is a stretch to imagine how, say, some of the laws in Deuteronomy are meant to apply to us.
The skills of textual analysis have helped me to understand that the Bible is not actually one book, but a collection of a lot of different books, each by an individual author with an individual message. I don’t think that means they’re worth any less. If anything, I can relate to the texts more, knowing that they come from ordinary people like you and me. That removes any need to ‘retcon’ the inconsistencies. Also, I feel considerably less anxiety about having to prove the Bible right when scientific and historical data clearly contradict it. I no longer see the Bible as a book of scientific truth, but as a repository of spiritual truth from a wide variety of authors.
My knowledge of Greek has helped me quite a bit. Even as a Christian, I did not start studying the NT in earnest until I tackled it from a linguistic perspective. Looking at the works which comprise the New Testament in their original tongue helps me to get into the mindset of the ancient author and reader. Also, it has taught me to distrust the words ‘literal translation.’
My historical knowledge of Late Antiquity has allowed me to see the good Christians have done in that era, as well as the bad. I don’t think anybody would disagree that banning the gladiatorial games was a positive move. I actually find this affirmative for my faith– it allows us to see that our moral choices are in our hands, which empowers us to make decisions for the benefit of the human race. Christianity has been a positive influence over the development of Western society in many different areas.
But more than anything, I guess that being a Classicist has taught me to appreciate the value of other ways of thinking, outside the square of Christian thought. It has exposed me to other religions, cultures, philosophies, languages and ways of life. It has taught me to empathise with others better, to see the good wrought by non-Christian religions and societies. Seriously, if it weren’t for Islamic preservation of Galenic medicine, we probably would be still using leeches. If it were not for the Enlightenment, you would not be sitting in front of a computer. In short, it has helped me to relate better to people of the world and see that they can make a positive contribution to the human race, even if they are not Christian. The world is a tapestry, with many different threads.
Some would say that my Classicism has had an adverse effect upon my faith, that it has made me more worldly. Perhaps– but the fact is, as Christians, we are in the world but not of it. Being in the world means we need to coexist with our neighbours… And love them, actually. In a sense, I believe that having a greater understanding of how the world works is a step toward the love and understanding of Christ. Being able to walk around in another person’s shoes helps us to respect, love, show compassion, and forgive.
These ideals are not exclusive to Christianity. Realising this has once again helped me to relate to others. It means I can encourage people to study the teachings of Christ upon a humanist ethical basis. My decision to avoid trying to convert people has not stopped me from encouraging others to study the Bible, and the Gospels especially. If people express an interest in reading the New Testament, I am pleased. If they find personal salvation, I am even more pleased. But I will not force it upon them. I believe that if people accept Christ, that acceptance must come voluntarily and not because some Christian is trying to force them. I no longer believe that it is my duty to convert people. And you know what? It has helped me a lot in my relations with others. People don’t like being told what to think or believe. Go figure!
These are just the thoughts of a Christian layperson, who is still figuring out how to navigate the world and do what he can to make it a better place.
Until next time,
Futurus
This is a beautiful, touching and thought-provoking post, Julian, especially the parts about how Classics and Christianity work together in your life. I think being able to see the good and the bad in something – or how that something manifests – is a hard-learned skill, but one that is sorely needed in the present (and in studies of history). Although I don’t share a belief in a higher power, I also try to live ethically, as a good human being, and I appreciate that you agree that you don’t necessarily need faith to do that. And if there are instances where I’ve been disdainful or dismissive about your faith, please accept my apologies!
Thanks, Jo. You have never been disdainful or dismissive of my faith, so no worries.
Particularly interested in the Enlightenment and science in general.
Religion to me is an understanding of how the world works and people’s place in it. I doubt anyone has ever sat down to write a religious text thinking “Aha! I shall write a pack of lies then sit back and laugh as my followers assume it’s the word of God!” It’s true to them and generally their claims to truth are based on something real and tangible and serve to explain real phenomena.
Martin Luther and others who defied the Catholic Church did so because they disagreed with certain teachings, rather than rejecting Christianity itself. Likewise, many of the major movers and shakers in the Enlightenment were interested in explaining things that were not already explained or attempting to remedy discrepancies between teachings and physical evidence (poor Galileo).
On the topic of Christians in Classics – one of my favourite pedagogues taught me European history with a definite focus on religion, not because he wanted to preach his beliefs on us but, it would seem, because he finds history’s more absurd moments a total hoot. He shamelessly took the mickey out of every Christian denomination for things like their reactions to witch-craft. **Without abusing any faith’s core beliefs or right to exist.** I had no idea from his lectures that he is a devout Anglican; I found out on the grapevine. I cite him as evidence that it is possible to know all the ancient texts inside out, critique them effectively and objectively, and still uphold the beliefs of one of them in a way that makes you a good person.
I hope most of that made sense and wasn’t too far off the topic.
Most excellent post sir! ~ Horse
Love this so much. Well written, interesting, humble and honest…. Well said Julian…
Thanks, Wolves.
I could perhaps say many things but am not in the habit of going out of my way to comment on peoples’ religious beliefs. However, I feel it necessary to make the following observation: if you acknowledge that the Bible is the work of human authors then it is qualitatively diminished. A book written by God himself, representing a divine revelation (what the archetypal Christian claims), would surely be worth more than a rather random selection of works by mortals (what the historical record shows). Nevertheless you state, “I don’t think that means they’re worth any less. If anything, I can relate to the texts more, knowing that they come from ordinary people like you and me.” Similarity to a writer can indeed cause on to feel greater connection to a work of literature. Given we are operating on a subjective level here, one could point out that it is possible to relate even more o recent works than to those from an entirely different period wherein different epistemic processes were the norm and social issues were largely dissimilar to those we experience today. One has to speak in abstract terms to derive much relevance out of such texts. Furthermore, minus the Godly authorship one would have to make a case for why those particular time-specific, contextually shaped texts are relevant over and above the vast scores of others which offer neither historical nor scientific but claim to of “spiritual” importance. I do commend you on having the intellectual integrity to recognize the presence of inconsistencies. Yet there remains the crux of the religious academic problem: religion commits one to a prior conclusion whereas most fields (including the specifically mentioned ones of Archaeology and Classics) require evidence before a conclusion is reached or accepted. Perhaps my brief reflection on the matters raised within your post fails to represent the complexity of what is at issue; however, one cannot say that there are no valid reasons for how religiousity is viewed or that conflicts do not exist between holding to a religious belief and pursuing the kind of disinterested knowledge that is the goal of the trained research scholar. Good luck with the rest of your PhD work. I know ho much effort one requires.
- S
Thanks for your thoughts. I will consider them further before responding in full.