'jk,' Can I have my old seat back?

Butterfly bush

In the third century, Christians alternated from being left alone to being persecuted.  Some Romans emperors had more on their minds than worrying about religion, like keeping the barbarians at bay.  Other emperors like Decius thought the woes of the Empire were at hand because people were not worshipping the gods like they once did.

‘What has been is what will be,
   and what has been done is what will be done;
   there is nothing new under the sun.
Is there a thing of which it is said,
   ‘See, this is new’?
It has already been,
   in the ages before us.’ Ecclesiastes 1:9-10

It’s funny that even back then people went back to the old playbook when things weren’t going well.  Even non-bible people blamed bad luck on gods.

Gonzalez:  ‘To a traditional Roman such as Decius, it seemed obvious that one of the reasons for all this (trouble) was that the people had abandoned the ancient gods.  When all adored the gods, things went better, and the glory and power of Rome were on the increase.  By neglecting the gods, Rome had provoked their displeasure, and had been itself neglected by them.  Therefore, if Rome’s ancient glory was to be restored, it was necessary to restore also its ancient religion.  If all the subjects of the Empire would worship the gods, perhaps the gods would once again favor the Empire.’

For these reasons, Decius became aggressive towards Christians.  In 249AD, he changed the official religious policy.  It was now mandatory to worship the gods.

Gonzalez:  ‘Those who complied would be given a certificate attesting to the fact.  Those who did not have such a certificate would then be considered outlaws who had disobeyed the imperial command.’

Not good news for our brothers and sisters.   Some of our brothers caved and sacrificed to the gods to get their ticket stamped.  Others got fake papers.  And some remained firm in not worshipping Roman gods.

Gonzalez:  ‘What the authorities did was to arrest Christians and then, through a combination of promises, threats, and torture, to try to force them to abandon their faith…This was no longer a sporadic or local persecution, but one that was systematic and universal.’

While the brutal tactics of Decius only lasted a few years, it presented a big challenge for the church.  What was the church supposed to do with the people who lapsed?

Some in the church hierarchy thought that once the policies of Decius were set aside, those who had lapsed should be readmitted to the church at once.  Other folks saw this as a problem and did not think the lapsed should get back in so easily.  This is one of the first schisms of the church. How long should the apostates have to wait?  Should they have to pay?

Gonzalez:  ‘The significance of these episodes is that they show that the restoration of the lapsed was one of the main concerns of the Western church from a very early date.  The question of what should be done about those baptized Christians who sinned divided the Western church repeatedly.  It was out of this concern that the entire penitential system was developed.’

There is going to be a lot more about schisms as we read our history.  I think this is a historical issue worth reflecting on.  Who doesn’t know someone who left a church because they got their feelings hurt?  Who doesn’t know about a church that split up because of some big controversy? 

‘This would be the first step in apostasy; men first forget the true, and then adore the
false.’  Charles Spurgeon

What is remarkable to me is that it is understandable that one would cave under intense torture or persecution.  John McCain did in Vietnam and I probably would too. 

What folks were trying to do back then was preserve the church.  It had been under attack almost since the beginning against false accusations and false doctrine.  People were abandoning their faith instead of getting beaten and killed.   Today we fight and separate over not getting the right part in the Christmas play or over who gets to cook Wednesday night supper.  Wouldn’t a deeper understanding of the bible and our history put these silly squabbles in perspective?

Source:  Justo L. Gonzalez from ‘The Story of Christianity, Volume 1, the Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation’