Jumpstarter 4 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion

Question 4

Tertullian highlights a moral inversion in Roman society (divorce, drunkenness, adultery) while Christians are accused of infant-killing and incest; how does his approach force us to examine what modern societies excuse as “normal” while still needing a villain to accuse?

Another way to ask: Tertullian points out that Romans excused things like divorce and adultery but accused Christians of terrible crimes. How does that make us ask what our society treats as “normal,” and who it chooses to blame as the bad guy?

Direct Answer Tertullian exposes how a society can normalize its own sins while inventing shocking rumors to justify hatred of a disliked group. His approach pushes Christians to ask whether our culture similarly excuses “respectable” corruption while projecting outrage onto a convenient villain.

Support from Transcript:

He challenges Roman “faithfulness” to ancestral morals: once “for about 600 years… not… a single divorce,” but now divorce is desired “as though… natural consequence of marriage.”
He notes social decay: women “heavy laden with gold,” and “wine bibbing is so common… the kiss is never offered with their will.”
Against Christians, he lists extreme charges: “kill a little child and then eat him… practice incest,” then calls them “constantly laid to our charge” without effort to “elicit the truth.”
He argues the accusations rest on “rumor,” and asks why no one has “happened upon an infant wailing.”
He turns the mirror back: in Roman temples “adulteries are arranged… pimping is practiced… deeds of licentiousness are done.”

Discussion Follow-ups What “respectable” sins does our society defend while condemning others? How can Christians critique culture without becoming self-righteous, like Tertullian still insists on evidence and fairness?

Jumpstarter 4 of 10

Add your phone number?

Thank you!

Jumpstarter 4 of 10