Friday Night Theology

Swine Flu

1 May 2009

In The Rise of Christianity, Rodney Stark, a sociologist, charts the phenomenal growth of Christianity in its first three hundred years, and attempts to offer some kind of explanation for it. He cites a number of different factors, but one of the most intriguing is the way in which the behaviour of Christians during epidemics in the 2nd and 3rd Centuries made a significant difference.

He begins by pointing out that Christianity offered far more of an explanation for the plagues than paganism did. For the pagans, these sweeping torrents of deaths were either the whims of capricious gods or they were the products of random, irrational forces. Either way, there was no sense in them, and therefore no purpose in fighting them. Apathy and acquiescence to such meaninglessness was the inevitable result.

In contrast, for the Christians, while they may not have known why God would choose to allow this particular individual to die as opposed to that particular individual, they nevertheless knew that death and destruction were not how God intended the world to be. Moreover, they also knew that God had given them a mandate to change this world for the better. So while paganism and atheism led to apathy, Christianity, as Stark writes, "provided a prescription for action".

Similar atheist apathy was evident in the recent atheist bus campaign. It proclaimed, "Now stop worrying and enjoy your life," but as Nick Spencer of Theos commented:

I was worried about losing my job in the coming recession, of my house being repossessed, of the growing sense of social dislocation in the country, of the fact the IPCC claims that hundreds of millions will be killed or displaced by climate change this century, etc. etc. etc.
But now that you come to mention it, perhaps I should stop worrying. If the world were populated by atheist homeless charities, drug rehabilitation centres, bereavement services, debt counselling, hospital and prison visitors, mums and toddlers groups, and such like, this advice might, just, be reasonable. But it is not.

In contrast, Christians are active in all these areas. So, as I indicated in a previous FNT, when I was once asked the suffering question in a radio interview my response was just this: "I don't fully know why God allows suffering, but I know what he's asking me to do about it."

Of course, such words would have no purchase if Christians didn't in fact act on their beliefs, but this is where Stark highlights another reason for the rise of Christianity. For in contrast to the surrounding pagans, the Christians largely lived up to their calling to demonstrate love and compassion both to one another and to the pagan world. In particular, they risked their own lives by nursing and tending the sick and as a direct result a greater proportion of Christians than pagans survived as the Christians were fed, watered and cared for by their fellow believers.

According to Stark, this was not the pattern among the pagans who often deserted one another when illness struck. The Christians therefore retained strong social networks while the pagans did not. Inevitably, therefore, when pagans did become ill they tended to go to the relatively small band of Christians for support rather than to their pagan neighbours. Moreover, because the Christians were willing and able to help these people, significant numbers were drawn into the circle of fellowship and support that the Christian community provided and as a result many became Christians.

Now I have no idea whether or not swine flu will become the pandemic that many fear, but whether it does or not, I do know that we are under the same call as those early Christians to demonstrate Christ's love in practical service both to one another and to those outside the church. And perhaps if we do, we also will see the same kind of remarkable rise that was witnessed in those early centuries.

Justin Thacker, Head of Theology