Pagans, Neo-Pagans & Evangelism

I had written a piece "Don’t dis them that brung ya to the dance" in 2011. It was about how secularists and atheists and such, claim to be all about love, hope, charity, but beat on Christians. I pointed out that such ideas and ideals didn't exist before Christianity.

I came across an article in the magazine "First Things", an article by J. Budziszewski titled "This Time It Will Not Be the Same" this past week that is an extension of that idea. The thought he addresses is the evangelization of the pagans the Apostle Paul and other early Christians faced, and how we modern Christians now face neo-pagans.

His point is the first Christians were presenting something new, entirely different from what anyone had experienced before. Neo-Christians have lived with the concepts and oft times the practice of charity, hope, love and the other ideas and practices of Christianity and have no need, they think, of Christianity to carry through with Christian principles.

Budziszewski points out the big difference: "The pagan made excuses for transgressing the moral law. By contrast, the neo-pagan pretends, when it suits him, that there is not morality, or perhaps that each of us has a morality of his own. Since they had the Law and the Prophets, it comes as not surprise that the Jews took morality for granted. But to a great degree, and despite their sordid transgressions, so did the pagans."

He goes on: "The pagan wanted to be forgiven but he did not know how to find absolution. The him the Gospel came as a message of release. But the neo-pagan does not want to hear that he needs to be forgiven, and so to him the Gospel comes as a message of guilt."

Since Christianity and the Gospel become messages of guilt, Christians are the guilty ones, and all is well with them; they can now create their own morality. As stated on this blog several times, we live in a upside down world. 

I often talk with secularists and atheists, and though they express such things as love, charity, hope as good things, they seem to think this has been something that has always been around. Budziszewski: "The pagan was raised differently. He was brought up in the ways and the atmosphere of paganism, and in order to be converted, he had to be removed from both. By contrast, though the neo-pagan has probably also been taught pagan ways, he may have been brought up in an atmosphere of Christian sentiment. Consequently, he regards the Gospel not as a story of the God became a man but as a sentimental fable for children."

The other thing I've noticed talking with nones, atheists, secularists, is they render all to caesar, not to God. They believe government can eradicate poverty, bring peace, through laws, regulations and rules, and people will act and behave correctly and with charity and love toward all.

The other element talking to these people they only know the bits and pieces of Christianity that have filtered into the culture. They've not read the Bible, let alone studied it, don't have a clue about Christian history other than it's responsible for the Crusades (mostly didn't happen they way we were taught), a couple inquisitions that were responsible for a few thousand deaths over centuries, compared to the millions slaughtered by secular governments, especially in the 20th century. The billions of people through the centuries that have benefited from the institutions, teachings, charity, love, and the Salvation of Christ are completely ignored.  

 Budziszewski notes there's a problem too with those within the Faith, that often accept the secular zeitgeist. The Apostle Paul, especially in his letter to the Galatians, points out this is always a danger. It's always more difficult to live a get along life of the pagans, neo-pagans, and secularists, than by the Word, having the Holy Spirit reside within us, and by the truth of the Gospel.

 J. Budziszewski has a web site "The Underground Thomist". The second half of his article can be found there. The full article can be found at "First Things", but one must subscribe to the web site. I subscribe to the magazine on my Kindle. For a couple bucks a month you can get superb articles like this. Worth it for a cover to cover read each edition.

  

Apostle Paul: His Life and Writings From an Ancient, Not Modern Perspective

The writings of the Apostle Paul are the dividing point between the pagan world and the modern world. I have met many saying the pagan world is more desirable than the modern western world. These same people claim to be about equality, anti-slavery, women’s freedom, and a whole host of other behaviors they hold dear.

None of those things existed in the pagan world. It was a brutal world of slavery, pedophilia, rape as acceptable behavior, no romantic love, no individual liberty for the common man, and women’s only purpose was sexual gratification and to have babies. The babies had to be healthy, and of the gender desired, or were left outside the city to die.

In a book by Sarah Ruden, Paul Among the People, The Apostle Reinterpreted and Reimagined in His Own Time, Ruden uses the literature of the time to recreate the world that existed at the time he wrote. I had, like many Christians, some problems with some things he wrote, especially about homosexuality, women, and marriage. I came away with a much better understanding of the times and his writing.

Our view of history is usually tempocentric, looking back in time through our modern sensibilities.

When Paul was writing about homosexuality, he was writing about something quite different from the consensual sex we think of now. To the ancient mind, there really was no identification of homosexual persons, and what Paul was addressing was heterosexual persons engaging in homosexual sex. Most of the world’s population were slaves, and what Paul saw happening were men engaging in sex with little boys. Ruden, who reads and translates the ancient writers in their own language, writes that such behavior was perfectly acceptable, but not among the Jews. Masculinity was shown by sexually exploiting little boys. When Paul writes about homosexuality, this is what his concern was; the rape and exploitation, the de-humanizing of others.

Women were barely recognized as human; really there was no word at that time of the equivalent of ‘woman’. There were just terms for them according to class or status, such as ‘female slave’, ‘lady’, ‘matron’. Paul seems to adhere to this when he writes that women should be covered and not speak in the church. Women at the time were not to speak in public assemblies, and a truer translation of what Paul wrote, is from the Greek word “ekkleisa”, which is a male only public assembly. Paul also wrote that women prayed and prophesied in these gatherings. In the pagan world that simply wasn’t allowed; that it was allowed in the early church is revolutionary. He wrote too that women should be veiled, and this is seen as demeaning though our modern eyes. What it meant then was the distinction between a married or widowed woman (veiled) and a slave or prostitute (unveiled). Ruden points out Paul's wanting all Christian women to be covered made them all equal, regardless of their past or status.

Paul revolutionized romantic love and marriage. His writings broke the barrier down regarding arranged marriage; essentially sexual enslavement. Once again, like he did with homosexual pedophilia, this was about equality and breaking the bonds of slavery. He did the same with adultery. He uses the word “porneia” for sexual immorality. In marriage, he writes, sexual activity outside marriage, for both the man and the woman, is an act to be loathed. He was about relationships, that becoming one flesh, happiness could be achieved, and spiritual life could expand beyond anything conceived before. Love is selfless, something not even on the radar before Paul.

There is much in this rich book, and I highly recommend it if you’re at all interested in understanding ancient times and Paul’s epistles. (It’s in my Amazon widget of recommended books in the right hand column.)  What did Paul mean when writing about submitting to government authorities, when at the same time was spending so much time in jail because of his so often rebelling against the State? Ruden addresses a lot of issues that are seemingly at odds with what we think of when we think of Christianity. This book increased my knowledge and my faith.        

The "New Atheists" Need To Practice Self-Honesty and Tolerance

The “New Atheists” aren’t content with just stating they don’t believe, but have concocted a religion of intolerance of their own making with the soul premise of insulting believers. The attack is a forked tongue…if you believe in God you’re a stupid idiot that believes in fairy tales; and Christianity has caused more wars and bloodshed than anything or anyone else. The second we can just toss out because it’s a demonstrable lie.

Atheists seem to think they’ve developed their ethics and morality all on their own without the Judeo-Christian Ethic. In pagan societies there were no charities, women existed only for sexual pleasure and bearing children, and if the born child was not well formed or an unwanted female, or even if just unwanted, it was taken out and left to die. Pretty much what goes on in China (atheist State) presently. Archeological sites exist with just the bones of babies piled up, a disposal ground. Human life has value?

Human beings by nature are self centered, selfish creatures. We’re born bad, and that’s much, but not all, of what is meant by the phrase, “we’re all born sinners”.

We live in a culture that mostly reveres birth and children, unlike the ancient pagans. We live in a culture that allows women to vote and work, and contribute to society. Pagans didn’t. We live in a culture that condemns murder, and the pagans gave mixed messages about it. Our culture for the most part honors our parents, pagan cultures didn’t. Pagan cultures practiced slavery on a massive scale. Atheists contend we would have eventually abolished slavery without religion. Really? Did any of the pagan cultures do it? It was primarily Christians that lead the movement against slavery. Didn’t see any pagans, or atheists chiming in.

Much is made of equality in our culture. Atheists say we would have gotten here anyway. Really? Didn’t happen in pagan cultures. It’s because of the Judeo-Christian tradition, the idea that God created us in His image making us all equal that brought forth the idea of equality between men. Like all things, this had to evolve…so slave owners had to recognize the human equality of their slaves and set them free, and men had to recognize the human equality of women and open society for their participation and growth.

The “New Atheists” contend that their ethics and values, that match those that have been the foundation of Judeo-Christian values, would have manifested in modern society without religion. If so, why didn’t it? It was the Jews that first talked about equality among men (the starting point for equality of all), that talked about altruistic love, “love your neighbor” not just your family and fellow tribesmen. It wasn’t the ancient pagans that first came up with the notion. They lived during the same time period, and not a word about universal love. It was the early Christian movement that created the concept of charity, flying in the face of the selfishness. That too evolved into something that atheists see as a good thing. Not an idea pagans came up with, living in the same time period. Even now in Atheist China and the barbaric Islamic Middle East, women don't even rise to the level of second class citizens, and slavery is still practiced. If equality is so self evident, now that we're in modern times, why isn't it being practiced there?

Our culture values charity, universal love, the value of women, the value of children, the value of others not of our tribe. Not one that I can see is the result of pagan thinking or atheists’ philosophy. If these values were so universal that we would have come to embrace the same values, why aren't they, in modern times, embraced by China or Islamic countries?

Atheists should not be so intolerant of the religions, the Judeo-Christian Ethic that gave them the values they claim to hold dear. It should be enough for them, like traditional atheists, to just say “I don’t believe” and let it go. Speaking with a forked tongue about the source of the good things about our culture just shows bigotry and bad form. They should be thanking the Western Religions for these things, not lying and insulting them.

Christianity, Paganism, Women

I'm watching the government and corporate attack on Christianity in this country. I'm watching the attack on women world wide. I'm looking at the attack and exploitation of women and children worldwide. I'm thinking we are regressing to paganism in the West. Some think it's okay to exploit and disrespect women, like was done in pagan times, before Jesus said some things about it.

In ancient times, women and children were of little to no value. Infanticide was common. Wanted a son, but had a daughter; kill her. Can you name a country now that engages in that practice? All humans without power were killed for entertainment (Roman lions and gladiators). Women and children, said even by great philosophers like Aristotle and Cicero, were of no worth. It was the prevalent thinking of ancient Jewish society. The family was of no importance at all. The state was responsible for the raising of children (it takes a village, anyone?)

Jesus comes along and tells people that this is wrong. He had women travel with him. He had women as confidantes. Even some of his disciples objected to this teaching, that women were to be respected, and had value. Adultery could only be committed by women. Jesus said no, this is an equal sin. In marriage women were given a more dignified position. Actually, when I read early church history, women seem to have run things.

As we move to the Middle Ages, courtly behavior toward women emerged. Courtesy began to be offered to women. The family started to become important, and woman's role in holding the family together and caring for and educating children became important. Romantic love was the foundation of this. That romantic love was different from what is expressed now. Now it's okay if you're horny for each other, well, get married. Hornyness goes away, get divorced. Romantic love as the basis was of course the ideal; a good ideal even though we fall short in practice. This ideal brought together erotic and spiritual love. The consent of the woman was prerequisite for marriage. Marriages no longer had to be arranged. Marriage was a reflection of God's relationship to us. We are His bride, and he honors and treats us with respect (please see my series on Romance).

I don't see this reflection of God in our relationships. I don't see God reflected in the way, more and more, our women are treated in the West. Young girls now think it's okay to send nude pictures of themselves via camera phone (as young as 11 or 12). "Sexting" is the new rage. The Romance is taken out of marriage. The meaning is taken out of marriage. The disrespect of women in hip-hop especially, and pop culture now, is no better, in my view, than the way pagan societies treated their women. Not what I viewed women's liberation to be about.

It's all about our having continually over the years, allowed government and corporations to remove Christ, and God's Law from our lives. We Christians had better find a way of presenting Christ's message about how to treat people, how to reflect God's Law and Love into our relationships, or we will once again find ourselves in pagan times. Many would like that. I would rather see the human condition improve and human suffering diminish.