CELSUS (OR ROBERTSON) ON CHURCH AND STATE

I found this interesting in a nerdy sort of way. Excerpts from Wikipedia's entry for Celsus, a voice against Christianity under the Roman Empire. I stumbled onto Celsus while studying why it was that Paul said in 1 Corinthians 1:24-25 that Christianity was rejected by the Greeks. You can tell a lot about a thing by it's enemies' taunts can't you? As you read, remember this is the era Christ was born into and in which the early Church was raised:

Celsus was a 2nd century opponent of Christianity, known to us mainly through the reputation of his literary work, The True Word (or Account), almost entirely reproduced in excerpts by Origen in his counter-polemic Contra Celsum of 248, seventy years after Celsus wrote. In that year...the atmosphere was full of conflict. Rome was celebrating the 1000th anniversary of its founding...Over against the state and the worship of the Caesar stood as usual the Christian ideal of A RULE AND A CITIZENSHIP NOT OF THIS WORLD (emphasis mine), to which a thousand years were but as a day. A supernatural pride was blended with a natural anxiety, and it was at this juncture that Origen brought to light again a book written in the days of Marcus Aurelius. Sometimes quoting, sometimes paraphrasing, sometimes merely referring, Origen reproduces and replies to all Celsus' arguments.

Celsus opens the way for his own attack by rehearsing the taunts levelled at the Christians by the Jews. Jesus was born in adultery, and nurtured on the wisdom of Egypt. His assertion of divine dignity is disproved by his poverty and his miserable end. Christians have no standing in the Old Testament prophecies, and their talk of a resurrection that was only revealed to some of their own adherents is foolishness. Celsus indeed says that the Jews are almost as ridiculous as the foes they attack; the latter said the saviour from Heaven had come, the former still looked for his coming. However, the Jews have the advantage of being an ancient nation with an ancient faith. The idea of an Incarnation of God is absurd; why should the human race think itself so superior to bees, ants and elephants as to be put in this unique relation to its maker? And why should God choose to come to men as a Jew? The Christian idea of a special providence is nonsense, an insult to the deity. Christians are like a council of frogs in a marsh or a synod of worms on a dunghill, croaking and squeaking, "For our sakes was the world created".

[In the end Celsus makes a final appeal to Christians in Rome] Come, he says, don't hold aloof from the common regime. Take your place by the emperor's side. Don't claim for yourselves another empire, or any special position. It is an overture for peace. If all were to follow your example and abstain from politics, the affairs of the world would fall into the hands of wild and lawless barbarians (viii.68). [Where've I heard that argument before?] Conceding that Christians are not without success in business (infructuosi in negotiis), he wants them to be good citizens, to retain their own belief but conform to the state religion. It is an earnest and striking appeal on behalf of the Empire, which was clearly in great danger, and it shows the terms offered to the Church, as well as the importance of the Church at the time.

WHAT STRUCK ME: It's interesting - not proof of any wrong thinking on it's own but just interesting for now - how similar the modern American evangelical view of proper church and state relations is to Celsus' view (his final plea for Christian involvement) and how dissimilar that view is to the early church's. To put it more bluntly, Pat Robertson and many Christian friends of mine sound more like Roman atheists serving Caesar 2000 years ago than early Christians following a Christ crucified for sedition against the Empire. Why is that? Is it a bad thing? What do you think?