Tertullian's
Apology is a strong defense of the Christian faith, but it sometimes seems more than a bit provocative. Read Chapters 1 and 50 at the link
here (and any chapters in between that appeal to you). What's your overall impression? Is this work more likely to make the Roman authorities think twice about torturing and executing Christians, or is it more likely to irritate them? Or does it do something of both? How would you have reacted to this work if you had been a Roman official directly or indirectly involved in the trials of Christians?
I believe that this would have caused a combinations of the two reactions. There would have been those who have stopped persecuting Christians, because they know understand that they do not understand, They need to try and understand, once they do they become a part of the faith. Also there would have been those who would have persecuted Christians even worse, because this would caused them to go into some kind of rage. This work would have irritated some beyond belief, I would have stopped any persecution that i could and try to understand the people that were being persecuted. It is impossible to make any kind of proper judgement without first understanding both sides of the problem. -Kelly Longden
ReplyDeleteI think the way he starts off the apology in Chapter 1 would mostly irritate Roman authorities. He calls most who persecute them ignorant. They hate that which they know nothing about. Over the course of chapters he tries to explain where Christians are coming from, but there is still a tone of harshness that could put off many who are trying to read it to understand.
ReplyDeleteIn Chapters 30-34, he mainly discusses the fact that Christians still owe the Senate and Caesar respect, and obey their authorities, so long as they try to remain temporal powers. If they were to overextend their power and desire to be worshipped as gods, then this is where the problem lies. This is informative, and probably the least harsh in the readings that I selected.
In Chapter 44, he goes on to a subject that might indicate he is calling the Romans clueless. He talks about how they value virtuous men, but they are killing off some of the most virtious men (Christians), and that it makes no sense to.
Finally, in chapter 50, I'm not sure if this is a persuasion to end persecution, but he says that it only makes Christianity stronger, because Christians getting persecuted for their beliefs are like soldiers dying in battle. He says it's a victory for them. This may be a way to stop persecution, but it seems to me like it could easily provoke them into increasing the death.
~Aaron Johnston
Early on he is bringing up the ignorance of the persecutors and says that they should listen and try to understand who the Christians are and what they are standing for before bringing up harsh condemnations. This might be a little offensive to most, being that they don't want to hear that they are ignorant people. He only wants the people to listen and find out who they are but they are not listening.
ReplyDeleteAll he wants is the truth to be heard so that then, if they still feel the need to persecute then they actually might have a reason to rather than just by their name.
I think that the Apology brings about a very unique perspective directly from the Christian perspective, and in a way indirectly from the Roman soldier perspective. I think that the soldiers would have obviously simply following orders, but just as he mentions in Chapter 50 when he speaks of the fact that soldiers long for war, the Romans probably were just as eager to kill Christians as they were eager to die for their faith. This seems perhaps a bit debatable and I'm not saying that all Roman soldiers REALLY wanted to kill Christians, but I think that they were doing their job, and they liked doing their jobs.
ReplyDelete