Religion, politics, atheism, and the early church
I recently ran across this historical reminder from theologian Jürgen Moltmann’s classic The Crucified God, and it struck a chord in light of current events:
The early Christians had constantly to defend themselves against the charge of irreligiositas and sacrilegium. In so far as they refused to make the obligatory sacrifices to the gods of the Roman state they drew on themselves the charge of ‘atheism’. This was not meant merely as an abusive description of Christians, but was a formal accusation which resulted in exclusion from society as ‘enemies of the human race’. Justin readily admitted his Christian atheism, which consisted of a denial of the gods of the state, and with regard to these ’so-called gods’ confessed himself to be an ‘atheist.’
The pseudo-criminal charge of atheism was part and parcel of the sporadic persecution of the early church in Roman society, resulting in martyrdom for even the “atheist” Justin Martyr.
Reading this passage resonated with me on two levels:
- It reveals the historical ironies in recent “atheist” attacks on a belief in God, à la Richard Dawkins The God Delusion. In political or sociological terms, Christians were in many ways the first atheists. This turns the tables on the whole debate in more ways than one. Historically speaking, it would seem atheism is in the mind of the beholder.
- The Roman charge of “atheism” was more about politics than theology. Christians weren’t buying into the imperialist cult of Caesar. As such, their religious beliefs were, to put it in contemporary terms, patently unpatriotic. They paid for their lack of patriotism with the vitriol of social marginalization and, in many cases, with blood.
Of course, Constantine changed all that. But it makes one wonder…. Were I not to necessarily believe in the same god as the god of “God Bless (or Damn) America,” should I, along with Justin Martyr, consider myself a “Christian atheist”?
Travis Scholl, 35, is managing editor of theological publications at Concordia Seminary. A graduate of Yale Divinity School (MDiv), he is an ordained Lutheran minister. Despite some time away, he and his wife are native St. Louisans, as is the child they are now raising. 
A God by any other name …
Yes, you probably should. But, if endeavors such as love, truth, hope are more important than events or labels such as martyr or atheist, why does it matter?
The more important construct is the connection between a political view and a particular series of religious doctrines. The separation of church and state is not there to keep the state out of the church’s business, it’s there to keep the church out of the state’s business.
Throughout history, it has almost always been a disaster for both the church and the state when religious doctrine takes over for responsible government. The examples are too numerous to mention. This does NOT mean that religious people should not be involved in public life, far from it. It does mean, however, that the church needs to be extremely careful to not throw the church into disrepute by alliances with political viewpoints.
For example, a strong Biblical case can be made for an essentially socialistic political structure (Read the book of Acts between the 2nd and 5th chapters. The idea that the fledgling church members ‘held all in common’, and the first Deacons were empowered to distribute the shared wealth of the church to the members as required is, on the face of it, a call for socialism, is it not?) Further strong Biblical cases can be made for particular items of both political party agendas, so how do you choose?
It’s my personal opinion that the church needs to get out of the “politics business” altogether. No minister should ever endorse a political party from the pulpit. Period. Making a call for social justice, or an end to abortion, or whatever, is not a problem. What is a problem is the blatant (or not so blatant) call that says “you can’t call yourself a Christian if you don’t vote for candidate X). There are churches out there who have removed the national flag from the church grounds, and I applaud them. Why? Because they are making a statement: Patriotism stops at the door of the church. The church operates in a different realm. There are many church leaders who operate schools who hate the idea of vouchers. Why? because with government (tax) money, comes government control. As a citizen, I would demand to know that my money is being well spent. As a christian, I would have a serious problem with telling the government how the church is spending money. See the point?
Great commentary by hs! That wall of separation between church and state should be kept quite high. This concept is very well captured in a statement in the Treaty of Tripoli, which was signed in 1796 between the fledgling United States and the nation of Tripoli:
“As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”
It is truly unfortunate that few (if any) modern politicians would stand by this claim.