The Sun Rises in the East

by Julie Grisolano

There are certain truisms about culture, politics, and religion that seemed at one point in history to be universal.  Take for instance the fact that two plus two equals four, the holocaust during WWII really did happen, and the sun does indeed rise in the east and set in the west every day.  Until recently, all three of these statements would not even be debated; everyone knew them to be true.  And I mention the fact about the holocaust not to get into a debate about that horrible incident from not too long ago, rather, to highlight that certain truisms were self-evident and not debated. 

Last night I had the misfortune to sit through a 90 minute lecture on "Church" History that covered the time frame from 100 A.D.-500 A.D.  I was induced to attend because my sister's friend helped organize the talk and there was also free pizza and beer.  Yet no amount of Home Run Inn Pizza or Coors Light beer could make the digestion of that talk go down in a pleasant manner.  The professor stated at the beginning of the talk that she was going to "dismantle" what the audience thought they knew about history so that she could "build you up again" with the truth.   The point of the lecture, as in, "what WAS the professor trying to teach us" is uncertain. But one "fact" that the good Ph.D. Doctor imparted was that Christians weren't REALLY persecuted by the Romans, they didn't really get killed all that often by the state, that only every 40 or 50 years or so would a Roman Emperor go on a killing spree, and that "no matter what the history books say" Christians weren't really living in fear that they might get killed. 

Now, the point of why I'm writing all this is NOT to get into a debate about the treatment of Christians in the Roman Empire.  What struck me then, as it strikes me now, is that this woman, who has a Ph.D. and probably spent tens of thousands of dollars and countless hours of study to obtain her degree, managed to learn what exactly?  What was the point of all that studying to come away from university with falsehoods filling her brain---falsehoods that are being imparted on her students. 

Perhaps an equally disconcerting problem with "revisionist" history is that real dialogue on a topic can't happen when you don't have a common starting place in which to launch the debate.  How can two people discuss the potential influence of ancient cultures on our modern concept of Church and State when the two people talking can't even agree on WHAT happened in those ancient cultures? 

The latest issue of Salvo deals with this topic.  If you haven't read it, then click here for an interesting article that talks about the current state of affairs on America's campuses.  It's wonderful that so many young adults have the ability to get a higher education, yet at what cost to our future?  What IS the point of getting an "education" at an Ivy League school, of going on for "advanced" degrees when what you've learned is, as my grandmother would often say, "goobily guck." 

Comments

[Ken Brown]

I'm a little confused. It is in fact true that the church did not face *constant* persecution under the Romans. Apart from a small handful of incidents (for instance, for a few years under Diocletian in the early fourth century - just before Constantine), most persecution was relatively light, local and sporadic, certainly no worse than the Jews faced in Medieval Europe. Official and widespread persecution was only a reality for brief periods. Your lecturer, in stating that more widespread persecution only occurred every 40 or 50 years, was correct, as almost any contemporary Church History would tell you (e.g. Justo Gonzalez The Story of Christianity). From your description, it sounds to me like she was simply trying to clarify the actual historical basis for the popular impression.

Perhaps an analogy would be helpful: Imagine if 1500 years from now the only thing the average person remembered about Jews and the modern period was that they faced terrible persecution. It would not be out of place for a historian to begin a popular lecture on Judaism in the modern period by inform the audience that, in fact, the Holocaust was an isolated event. Yes, Jews faced persecution on many other occasions, but not *constantly* throughout the modern period.

The case with the early church is rather similar.

None of that, of course, ought to diminish the terror felt by those who *have* live through persecution, or lived in areas where persecution was more lasting. Nor is "every 40 or 50 years" by any means insignificant (it means that nearly every generation of early Christians faced persecution at some point, and no doubt the fear of it was felt even between incidents). If the lecturer was trying to claim that Christians were not persecuted at all, she would be as wrong as those who deny the Holocaust occurred, but I don't see how clarifying that such widespread persecution (as under Diocletian) was the exception rather than the rule can be taken as proof of the intellectual bankruptcy of the higher education system. Nor do I think it quite fair to judge how much she has learned from her PhD on the basis of one lecture given to a popular audience, much less to generalize from one lecturer to the quality of education in the whole "ivy league." Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you.

[Julie]

The story of the professor that I wrote about was just an example on a micro level of a problem that I truly believe illustrates what's going on in university education on a macro level.

Ken, you make a valid point that one lecture does not make the professor's degrees somehow invalid.

That being said, the professor wasn't just making a point that persecutions were sporadic. Sitting in the audience I was definitely left with the impression that I was to walk away thinking that occassionally Christians living in the Roman Empire were killed, but at such a sporadic level it was inconsequential.

True, the Roman Empire didn't set as its top agenda item the wiping out of all Christians. The goal of emperor after emperor wasn't some type of maniacal plot to eradicate Christianity. But, let's be fair to history, the empire didn't like the Christians and they were oftentimes, the scapegoat for other problems. Eusibius writes, as does Tertullian, about Christian persecutions. It was VERY real. When the economy was bad...blame the Christians. Nero blamed Christians for Rome burning and killed many. With the exception of John, the Roman Empire executed every one of the original Apostles--including Paul. Until Christianity was legalized in 314 A.D., the majority of the Popes were executed by the Roman Empire. In the second century, Polycarp was burnt alive for not offering incense to the Roman gods, and that does not include the emperors like Dominitian, Septimus Severus, Diocletian, and even Marcus Aurelius, who either deliberately persecuted, or allowed the persecution of early Christians.

These early men and women were at best living like political dissidents who at any point in time could be blamed for the economic woes of the empire, or could be forced to put their beliefs on the line by not offering sacrifice to other gods. At worst, some of the early Christians were hunted down and killed---in gruesome fashions.

By dismissing such a truism as early Christian persecution, the professor was misleading her audience. In my opinion, this is one incident among many that I have witnessed over the past few years of professors mis-representing material.

[Ken Brown]

Thanks for clarifying. If the lecturer was indeed implying that Christian persecution was "inconsequential," then you are right to object, though I'm still rather uncomfortable about generalizing to the conclusion that "getting an 'education' at an Ivy League school" (often?) amounts to learning "goobily guck." Granted that the lecture in question is but one of many examples, that seems a pretty precarious link.