Candida Moss debunks the ‘myth’ of Christian persecution

Growing up Catholic in England, Candida Moss felt secure in life, yet was told in church that Christians have been … Continued

Growing up Catholic in England, Candida Moss felt secure in life, yet was told in church that Christians have been persecuted since the dawn of Christianity. Now, as an adult and a theologian, she wants to set the record straight.

Too many modern Christians invoke, to lamentable effect, an ancient history of persecution that didn’t exist, Moss argues in her newly published book, “The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented A Story of Martyrdom.”

Although anti-Christian prejudice was fairly widespread in the church’s first 300 years, she writes, “the prosecution of Christians was rare, and the persecution of Christians was limited to no more than a handful of years.”

We asked Moss, professor of New Testament and early Christianity at the University of Notre Dame, to talk about the travails of early Christians, and how they are misappropriated in the public sphere today. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Q: You argue that modern myths of Christian persecution are rooted in an ancient myth, and you focus on Pliny, a first- and second-century Roman who governed what is now Turkey. Why should we know about him?

A: He’s the first Roman official to actually talk about Christians. He writes to the Emperor Trajan and says, “What am I supposed to do about them? They’re not doing anything wrong, but when they’re in the courtroom they’re very stubborn.” Those charges could get you killed in the Roman world. And Pliny has other concerns: Christians were not purchasing the meat associated with the Roman temples. And he thinks of Christians not as a religious group, but prone to superstition, which the Romans considered a kind of madness that could spread like a disease.

Pliny and Trajan agree that there will be no seeking out of Christians, but if they do end up in courtrooms and are stubborn, he will give them three chances to curse Christ and make a sacrifice in the Roman temple. If they don’t, they will be killed. I’m not saying what Pliny did was right, but it’s very far from the story I grew up with, about Christians being hunted down.

Q: Isn’t that persecution though? They’re not being sought out, but if they do wind up in court, there’s a decent chance they’re going to die.

A: Is it persecution? I’d say it comes fairly close to the line. I’m not saying it’s just. But it was illegal to be part of a secret club at the time. It was illegal to be stubborn toward a Roman judge. So it’s not that they’re being persecuted for having a Trinity. They are being executed for breaking the law.

I want to understand what, from the ancient Roman perspective, was the problem with Christians. The Romans tolerated lots of religious groups. They only really acted in situations where they thought the group was dangerous, and Christians talk about their new emperor Christ. They talk about how they cannot respect the Roman government. A lot of them say they won’t join the military. They’re very subversive. But this is a world where religious freedom isn’t a right; it just doesn’t exist as a concept yet.

Q: Critics of your book — even if they agree that there was no concerted, sustained campaign to root out and kill the early Christians — argue that this was nonetheless a dark and dangerous period for them. Doesn’t that count for something?

A: The situation was terrible and we should be attentive to that, but distinctions need to be made. The Emperor Decius (who in the third century required everyone in the empire to make a sacrifice to his divine spirit) didn’t really know what his edict would mean for Christians and he wasn’t trying to attack them. He was basically trying to bolster the Roman Empire.

In a contemporary discussion, Catholics feel very strongly about the Obama administration’s contraceptive mandate. President Obama is not trying to harm Catholics or Christians generally; he is trying to provide health care. Catholics can disagree with him very strongly, but unless he’s trying to attack Catholics, as long as we believe he is interested in health care, we can continue to have a discussion with him.

There’s been a lot of back and forth between the Catholic bishops and the Obama administration. That’s a different situation than if we were in a country where legislation was passed that said “Christians can’t own Bibles” or “you can’t go to church.”

Q: Who is capitalizing on the myth of Christian persecution?

A: When people talk about being persecuted in modern America, I think it’s dangerous. I’m talking about everyone from Rick Santorum to Mitt Romney to Catholic bishops, and Bill O’Reilly talking about a war on Easter. The problem with this is that it destroys dialogue. Persecutors don’t have legitimate complaints so you can’t really have productive discussions.

But you can disagree with someone sharply on the basis of your religious beliefs without accusing them of persecution. When you say they’re persecuting you, you’re basically accusing them of acting with Satan.

Q: So how are you going to convince someone like Bill O’Reilly to quit claiming that American Christians are persecuted?

A: What I try to do in the book is to not talk about the issues but to talk about the rhetoric. So I give examples of people from the religious left who are doing it. I’m critical of them, too.

We’ve all got to take a look at our own causes and say, “I’m not going to use this language. I’m going to see that other people have good intentions.” That’s how you really have productive discussions with people.

Q: But you believe there is real persecution of Christians in the world today?

A: Yes, there is. It’s a “boy who cried wolf” situation. One of the reasons we are not hearing about them is because of all of the cries of persecution here — and local cries about persecution overshadow the global ones. We do need to hear those stories about Christians in other parts of the world, but we need to make sure that instead of talking about the global war on Christianity — which a lot of Christian and Catholic reporters have done — that we tell the story in a way that doesn’t do violence to other persecuted groups.

Christians live in a very difficult situation in China, for example. But it’s not so much part of a global war on Christianity as it is the Chinese government’s treatment of the religious in general. If we make it just about the war on Christianity then we betray people like the Falun Gong, who are very persecuted in China.

Q: People use inflammatory rhetoric to score points all the time. Is there something worse about religiously inflammatory rhetoric than inflammatory rhetoric in general?

A: The problem with religious rhetoric, if we’re talking about a battle between God and Satan, is that the stakes are so much higher. If we’re talking about “God is demanding you to do this,” you can’t really have a conversation after that. Because religion is such a lightning rod, it means that whenever we use religious texts or religious language, we have to be especially sensitive to the power of those ideas.

Copyright: For copyright information, please check with the distributor of this item, Religion News Service LLC.

  • SimonTemplar

    Let me see if I understand her position:

    It’s not persecution if it is sanctioned by law. Sure Christians died because their Christian beliefs were at odds with the general beliefs of those around them. Still, they wouldn’t buy meat and that was breaking the law!

    Also, if others were scooped up under some type of persecution (not just Christians) then Christians can not claim that they were persecuted? Does that mean Jews can’t claim to have been persecuted by the Nazi just because the Nazis also killed gypsies and gays?

    Wow! The mind of the modern “intellectual”!

  • SimonTemplar

    Let me see if I understand her position:

    It’s not persecution if it is sanctioned by law. Sure Christians died because their Christian beliefs were at odds with the general beliefs of those around them. Still, they wouldn’t buy meat and that was breaking the law!

    Also, if others were scooped up under some type of persecution (not just Christians) then Christians can not claim that they were persecuted? Does that mean Jews can’t claim to have been persecuted by the Nazi just because the Nazis also killed gypsies and gays?

    Wow! The mind of the modern “intellectual”!

  • cricket44

    Finally, an intelligent analysis. I’m sure Ms. Moss will be drubbed quite thoroughly for daring to speak truthfully and rationally.

  • cricket44

    Finally, an intelligent analysis. I’m sure Ms. Moss will be drubbed quite thoroughly for daring to speak truthfully and rationally.

  • Lee Hughart

    Moss’ scholarship in this area is seriously flawed. While she argues that persecution was not universal and constant, a historical proposition that no serious historian proposes in or out of the Christian church, she spends her time in her book redefining the term persecution to fit her agenda. One method is to relegate historical accounts, which certainly have some flaws, to mere copies of prior myths. A denial that similar events can’t happen more than once. A premise that certainly is questionable. Because things are similar does not make the second event false. Example: school shootings – the accounts may come out similar in the historical telling, but that does not mean that each of them did not happen.

    Worse and more dangerous is her redefining of persecution. To her if it is against a law, it is not persecution. If it has other groups that also suffer, it is not persecution. By this definition, the Jews were not persecuted in Europe except rarely and the Nazis didn’t persecute them, just prosecuted them. Jim Crow laws of the South were not a form of persecution either. If we set her definition in place, I can see justification for all kinds of government abuse of its citizens. And no matter what the government did, it would only be prosecuting rude, subversive enemies of the state. Does this sound like any past government’s propaganda rhetoric in world history? Well, according to Moss’ it can’t be, because things can’t repeat.

    One other note of importance: Her playing with facts is sloppy and used to fit her thesis; contrary facts are excluded. She says Pliny was the “the first Roman official to actually talk about Christians.” This is sloppy, this is the first one we have a record of. Others may have, but we don’t have their information. In her book she states that Paul did not make it Rome in the Book of Acts. A New Testament professor knows better. Others abound, but space is limited. Check the facts before you swallow

  • Lee Hughart

    Moss’ scholarship in this area is seriously flawed. While she argues that persecution was not universal and constant, a historical proposition that no serious historian proposes in or out of the Christian church, she spends her time in her book redefining the term persecution to fit her agenda. One method is to relegate historical accounts, which certainly have some flaws, to mere copies of prior myths. A denial that similar events can’t happen more than once. A premise that certainly is questionable. Because things are similar does not make the second event false. Example: school shootings – the accounts may come out similar in the historical telling, but that does not mean that each of them did not happen.

    Worse and more dangerous is her redefining of persecution. To her if it is against a law, it is not persecution. If it has other groups that also suffer, it is not persecution. By this definition, the Jews were not persecuted in Europe except rarely and the Nazis didn’t persecute them, just prosecuted them. Jim Crow laws of the South were not a form of persecution either. If we set her definition in place, I can see justification for all kinds of government abuse of its citizens. And no matter what the government did, it would only be prosecuting rude, subversive enemies of the state. Does this sound like any past government’s propaganda rhetoric in world history? Well, according to Moss’ it can’t be, because things can’t repeat.

    One other note of importance: Her playing with facts is sloppy and used to fit her thesis; contrary facts are excluded. She says Pliny was the “the first Roman official to actually talk about Christians.” This is sloppy, this is the first one we have a record of. Others may have, but we don’t have their information. In her book she states that Paul did not make it Rome in the Book of Acts. A New Testament professor knows better. Others abound, but space is limited. Check the facts before you swallow

Read More Articles

Valle Header Art
My Life Depended on the Very Act of Writing

How I was saved by writing about God and cancer.

shutterstock_188545496
Sociologist: Religion Can Predict Sexual Behavior

“Religion and sex are tracking each other like never before,” says sociologist Mark Regnerus.

5783999789_9d06e5d7df_b
The Internet Is Not Killing Religion. So What Is?

Why is religion in decline in the modern world? And what can save it?

river dusk
Cleaner, Lighter, Closer

What’s a fella got to do to be baptized?

shutterstock_188022491
Magical Thinking and the Canonization of Two Popes

Why Pope Francis is canonizing two popes for all of the world wide web to see.

987_00
An Ayatollah’s Gift to Baha’is, Iran’s Largest Religious Minority

An ayatollah offers a beautiful symbolic gesture against a backdrop of violent persecution.

Screenshot 2014-04-23 11.40.54
Atheists Bad, Christians Good: A Review of “God’s Not Dead”

A smug Christian movie about smug atheists leads to an inevitable happy ending.

shutterstock_134310734
Ten Ways to Make Your Church Autism-Friendly

The author of the Church of England’s autism guidelines shares advice any church can follow.

Pile_of_trash_2
Pope Francis: Stop the Culture of Waste

What is the human cost of our tendency to throw away?

chapel door
“Sometimes You Find Something Quiet and Holy”: A New York Story

In a hidden, underground sanctuary, we were all together for a few minutes in this sweet and holy mystery.

shutterstock_178468880
Mary Magdalene, the Closest Friend of Jesus

She’s been ignored, dismissed, and misunderstood. But the story of Easter makes it clear that Mary was Jesus’ most faithful friend.

sunset-hair
From Passover to Easter: Why I’m Grateful to be Jewish, Christian, and Alive

Passover with friends. Easter with family. It’s almost enough to make you believe in God.

colbert
Top 10 Reasons We’re Glad A Catholic Colbert Is Taking Over Letterman’s “Late Show”

How might we love Stephen Colbert as the “Late Show” host? Let us count the ways.

emptytomb
God’s Not Dead? Why the Good News Is Better than That

The resurrection of Jesus is not a matter of private faith — it’s a proclamation for the whole world.

shutterstock_186795503
The Three Most Surprising Things Jesus Said

Think you know Jesus? Some of his sayings may surprise you.

egg.jpg
Jesus, Bunnies, and Colored Eggs: An Explanation of Holy Week and Easter

So, Easter is a one-day celebration of Jesus rising from the dead and turning into a bunny, right? Not exactly.