why do you argue...

A phrase keeps echoing around in my head. I cannot remember who said it, but it goes something like this: "Why do you argue against that which no one believes?" The question is meant to challenge people who set up "straw man" arguments, who refuse to take up their discussion with a serious position, but instead must caricature that position in order to defeat it.

I think one of the things that frustrates me most in dialogue with unbelievers these days is that many refuse to argue against what Christianity really is. The newest form of argument (which is really a recycling of an old one) is that, in fact, there were lots of different types of Christianity at first, but the big, mean, oppressive Roman Catholic Church which was in bed with the Emperor stifled all these "pagan" Christianities and persecuted them.

There is no doubt whatsoever that the later RCC did some unChristian things in its history. But this form of argument is terribly oversimplistic. Look: A good historical observation of the facts demonstrates that there was a basic Christian teaching, a "rule of faith," a creed, that passed on from Jesus, to His apostles, to teachers in the second century and on down to Nicea 325 A.D., when the 318 bishops, who were finally allowed to meet in public without being slaughtered, were able to put it down on paper. Depending on which source you use, the vote on the Nicene Creed was either 316 to 2, or 300 to 3. Not exactly a nail-biter. Apostolic Christianity vs. "Gnostic" or "Pagan" Christianity was not a close call. Genuine, apostolic Christianity had held onto the teachings of Jesus in the catacombs and house churches, had defended it against heresy and persecution, and were finally able to freely discuss it. This "rule of faith" is the same core Christian doctrine that has been held to for 2,000 years. It is what an apostolic Christian is.

The premise of this whole attack on Christianity is that if there were a bunch of different "types" of Christianities in the early centuries, then Christianity is invalidated. All sorts of attempts are made to make Christians look like they were deliberately taking pagan beliefs and baptizing them into the language of Jesus, and then turning around and oppressing the pagans. So people like Augustine and Justin Martyr are taken way out of context by websites like The Pagan Origins of the Christ Myth to say things they never intended to say.

The problems with this are manifold, but the biggest of all is that the theory of a Christianity that was terribly divided on the essential issues of the faith is not true. Those espousing it do not realize that their thinking is so heavily influenced by modernist and postmodernist assumptions that they cannot take at face value the wisdom and apologetic of early Christian writers, nor can they read them in context. Gee, could it actually be possible that Tertullian, writing about Christianity in the second century, had a better handle on early Christian history than John Dominic Crossan?

Now, of course, any attempt to defend our faith by pointing out historical evidence is met with scoffing and out of hand dismissal. It's very convenient to be able to argue "academically" against Christians, but when we present facts to back up what we say, we are accused of simply being stubborn and "relying on creeds and dogma." This is a huge, insulting overgeneralization, but then, Jesus said we'd have to deal with that, and I gladly will for His sake.