Hi Mike, I’m sorry I have to disagree with the approach you are suggesting. I think you have to be cautious when looking for the continuities and discontinuities between the New Testament writers and church fathers who came after this period. Paul isn’t just ‘playing nice’. He is living out an important cultural value -piety. Piety was about respect and honour and at this point we reach rock bottom of the Greek value system. It was a value shared by both Jews and Greeks. Paul was very careful in his exegesis of his culture and knew where to push through so that the gospel could be understood and accepted. Paul was critical of the Graeco-Roman culture, but his main point of critique was not directed at idols or their cult. It seems to me his main point of critique was directed at a culture with an obsession with rhetoric and status. Although Paul used rhetoric, he was at pains to point out where the culture generated by an ethos of rhetoric departed from a culture imbued with the gospel. Rhetoric produces a very combative style of engagement with one’s opponents. This was one of the reasons why Paul strenuously stressed conciliation, forgiveness, gentleness etc. Now this is important because the churchmen that you alluded to were all highly trained in rhetoric. Lactantius was a teacher of rhetoric. He and the other churchmen didn’t necessarily take too much notice of Paul’s critique of rhetoric. But maybe in their cultural circumstances they needed to take a more aggressive approach. Paul lived in the ascendancy of the Roman empire, which reached it peak in the mid 2nd century. Lactantius was born in the mid 3rd century (?) in the midst of economic and military turmoil. He lived through one of the worse persecutions of Christians ever. I think we need to know our cultural periods. Is an aggressive rhetorical style helpful in our present circumstances? Perhaps we should carefully listen to Paul’s critique of the culture of rhetoric and think carefully before injecting in to our culture the very thing that Paul was critical of by way of the church fathers.

Hi Mike, thank you for responding. I appreciate that you reiterate your point. I’m pretty sure that I’m grasping what your saying, but I’m disagreeing with your analysis of Acts 19. It was the standard Jewish polemic that “gods made with hands are no gods at all.” One that Demetrius was able to employ against Paul’s associates to stir up the crowd. If we can take Josephus as a credible witness then there had been a Jewish community in this part of Asia Minor since the Persians. In Acts the people of Ephesus appear to be pretty familiar with the basic Jewish message; notice how they react when they realise that Alexander is a Jew when he goes out to speak to them. What is crucial is to understand the town clerk’s speech. Notice that he says “For you have brought these men here [ie into the theatre] who are neither robbers of temples nor blasphemers of our goddess”. The phrase “robbers of temples” is rhetorical shorthand for sacrilege. Paul uses this phrase in Romans 2:22 “You who abhor idols, do you rob temples?” What Paul and the town clerk are doing is trapping into a familiar rhetorical discourse about impiety. Both Jews and Gentiles held piety to be an important virtue. We can see from the town clerk’s speech that Paul and his associates were not impious because they did not speak directly against the goddess. If they had done so they most likely would have found themselves before the courts or the proconsul. But I think it is more than Paul avoiding legal trouble. I’m saying that Paul deliberately did not blaspheme the goddess because to do so would bring his own reputation and the reputation of the gospel into disrupt. As he implies in Romans that although he may abhor idols he was careful not to blaspheme anyone’s god or commit sacrilege. For to do so would mean he was impious and a disreputable character. So what I’m saying is that Paul was very careful in his mission strategy not to directly attack other gods but to present a positive argument for the gospel. While this did entail saying that there was only one God he appears to have been careful not attack the gods or goddesses directly. This must be so in order for the town clerk of Ephesus to defend Paul and his associates because it was his job to see that the city fulfilled it’s duties as guardian of the temple of Artemis. It is true that Paul and Barnabas do use the Jewish polemic against idol worshippers in Lystra but this was not a normal presentation of the gospel. It is the circumstances that dictate the presentation and under normal circumstances such as regularly preaching the gospel in Ephesus for 2 years Paul is careful not to blaspheme the goddess or any other gods (other gods were worshipped in Ephesus not just Artemis). I believe that this means that Paul did not start arguments with the idols of his age and I think that means we should be careful about starting arguments with the idols of ours.

Hi Lyn, you might be confusing my phrase “start an argument” with “be rude and disrespectful”. As I say in my article, the early Christians supported their preaching with extraordinary acts of kindness and love, but their rebuke of polytheism, while no doubt respectful, was still strident. Demetrius stirs up the silversmiths in Ephesus by charging Paul with saying that “gods made by human hands are no gods at all”. The language of later apologists like Justin and Lactantius was even more strident. That being said, I agree strongly with what you’re saying about the winsomeness of the early Christians and the very great good sense that their community made to members of the empire in the early centuries of the Christian movement.

I think the key is in your second last paragraph: “I’m not suggesting we make it our business to stir up trouble for trouble’s sake”. Kreider, I think successfully, makes the point that the Christian’s understanding of patience as a key spiritual discipline was of utmost importance, therefore, “winning arguments” was of little consequence in the grand scheme of God’s work in the world.

I completely agree with the premise of your post but I think the context of Patient Ferment would be something that we would do well to remember in conversing with wider society. There are so many issues / idols that Christians could/should be challenging, but are trumped by one or two that in my opinion qualify as matters of “personal affairs”.

I’ve heard much lately about how Christians may “suffer” for standing up for what they believe (read mostly in the context of the SSM debate) but the words of 1 Peter 4:15 stuck out to me recently” “If you suffer, it should not be… for prying into other people’s affairs.”

We absolutely should be prepared to put our necks on the line to challenge the idols of our day – but we should also be willing to ask ourselves the questions: “Am I displaying / practicing Christian patience?” and “Is this just me wanting a say into the personal affairs of other that I don’t approve of?”

Cheers,
Dave