Features: Stoicism and Christianity by Jules Evans

Jules Evans considers the the similarities and differences between Stoicism and Christianity, which was the theme of his workshop, with Mark Vernon, at the Stoicism for Everyday Life Event in London. Please chip in with your own reflections and observations too.


1) Serving God / the Logos

I think one of the main similarities, one of the ways in which Stoicism anticipated Christianity, is the idea of serving the will of God. Neither Stoicism or Christianity demand that God or the Gods do your will (and bless you with children, or a good harvest, or a good hunt etc), which is really a form of operational magic, but rather that you do God’s will, that you accept the will of God and try to serve it.

We should also note that the Stoics were monotheists – they followed Heraclitus in believing in one Logos. In this they can be compared to the evolving monotheism of Judaism, particularly that of Moses around two centuries earlier. Later Christians would draw on the Stoic concept of the Logos, particularly in the marvelous opening to the Gospel of St John. I wonder if one could argue that Stoicism is in some ways more monotheistic than Christianity, in that there is no opposing Enemy, no angels and demons, and no Trinity? There is just the Logos.

Anyway, back to this idea of giving up your will and serving the Logos. Cleanthes said: ‘Conduct me, Jove, and you, 0 Destiny, Wherever your decrees have fixed my station.’  Cleanthes’ Hymn to Zeus anticipates, I think, some of the noble sentiments of the Lord’s Prayer:

O God, without you nothing comes to be on earth,
neither in the region of the heavenly poles, nor in the sea,
except what evil men do in their folly.
But you know how to make extraordinary things suitable,
and how to bring order forth from chaos; and even that which is unlovely is lovely to you.
For thus you have joined all things, the good with the bad, into one,
so that the eternal Word of all came to be one.

This Word, however, evil mortals flee, poor wretches;
though they are desirous of good things for their possession,
they neither see nor listen to God’s universal Law;
and yet, if they obey it intelligently, they would have the good life.
But they are senselessly driven to one evil after another:
some are eager for fame, no matter how godlessly it is acquired;
others are set on making money without any orderly principles in their lives;
and others are bent on ease and on the pleasures and delights of the body.

They do these foolish things, time and again,
and are swept along, eagerly defeating all they really wish for.

O Zeus, giver of all, shrouded in dark clouds and holding the vivid bright lightning,
rescue men from painful ignorance.
Scatter that ignorance far from their hearts.
and deign to rule all things in justice.
so that, honored in this way, we may render honor to you in return,
and sing your deeds unceasingly, as befits mortals;
for there is no greater glory for men
or for gods than to justly praise the universal Word of Reason.

There is a sort of ‘inner magic’ in this attitude of acceptance of God’s will – it frees you from anxiety and fear, while giving you the courage to press on and do the right thing.

2) What is the highest thing in your life? Who or what are you serving?

Another important idea in both Stoicism and Christianity is the question of what is the most important thing in your life. What do you serve? What is your god or master? Because everything will follow from that. There’s a similar idea in Plato – if you make public approval your God, then you make yourself the slave of the public, and will have to dance to their tune. If you make money your god, then you will have to dance to that tune, and bend and twist in accordance with your master.

One of the things I think I have been searching for in life is something or someone to serve. I think that’s true of a lot of people. And in a way, my career initially involved serving a succession of bad masters. Then I became a freelance journalist, which is in a way the ultimate humanist illusion – you’re ‘working for your self’. In fact, I found, that often meant I was anxiously seeking validation from ‘the public’, my new master.

I have been trying, not entirely successfully, to switch from serving the outer master of public approval, to serving what Epictetus calls the God Within, what Jesus calls the Kingdom. Because that is a master worthy of service. That involves a switch in the centre of your self, an an evolution from a self based on appearances (looking good to others) to a self rooted in service to God. I know that sounds pretty fancy and pious for an idle and vain sod like me, but that’s the aspiration at least, even if the actuality falls well short of that.

3) Inner service, not external spectacle

Related to this idea of serving the God Within is the idea in both Stoicism and Christianity of being wary of ostentatious worship of God, because you might really be showing off to other people. Epictetus says ‘when you’re thirsty, take a little water in your mouth, spit it out, and tell no one.’ And Jesus also talks about how people who pray very ostentatiously have already got their reward here on Earth.

4) Askesis

As Pierre Hadot has explored, early Christianity also took on the Stoics’ idea of askesis – the idea of the spiritual life involving training of the mind, the passions and the body. Indeed, the desert fathers developed this idea of askesis into asceticism, into a very rigorous programme of mental and particularly physical self-discipline. The idea of askesis is still strong in Orthodox Christianity, which in general seems to me much closer to Greek philosophy, while modern Evangelicalism seems to have thrown that entire tradition out in favour of loud and slightly soupy declarations of love for Jesus. However, I understand Loyola’s Spiritual Exercises are growing in popularity among Evangelicals, so perhaps the idea of spiritual training is making a comeback.

5) Serving the City of God before the City of Man

Christianity also developed the Stoics’ idea of the cosmopolis – the City of God – and the idea that the good person should try and serve the cosmopolis first, and their own particular tribe second. This is a radical idea, in that it breaks through tribal and racial barriers and insists that all humans share a divine nature. What a beautiful idea it is.

OK, so what are the differences?


1) The Logos made flesh

While Christianity drew on the Stoic idea of the Logos, there is a crucial difference. Christ is, according to St John, the Logos made flesh. There is a big difference between serving a rather distant and unknowable ‘force’ or providence, and serving a flesh-and-blood person, who was born in a particular place and time, who wept for us, who suffered and died for us. I think in some ways it is easier emotionally to love and serve a person rather than a pantheistic force – though it is also perhaps harder intellectually!

The relationship with God in Judeo-Christianity is very different to the Stoics’ relationship to the Logos. For the Stoics, it’s rather like the relationship between an aristocratic English (or aristocratic Roman) father and their son – rather distant, intellectual, and based on cold ideas of duty and virtue. In Judeo-Christianity it’s much more, well, Jewish – loud, emotional, needy, constantly bursting into arguments, constant back-and-forth, with God just as needy as humans. The relationship with God is more emotional, more sensual, more (dare I say it) erotic than in Greek philosophy (although there is an argument that this erotic aspect of worship is in Plato too). The Jewish God is hungry for our love, for our praise, and when we turn to Him he runs to meet us. Compare Cleanthes’ Hymn to one of David’s Psalms, or indeed to the passionate and weepy conversion experience of St Augustine, and you get a sense of the difference.

2) Christianity is much more emotional and needy!

Just to elaborate on the point above – Christianity is far more emotional, it seems to me, than Greek philosophy – full of sobs, and groans, and wails of anger or despair, as well as exultation and ecstasy. Again, the Psalms of David are a good indication of this. Though of course there are traditions in Christianity that are more wary of the emotions – particularly Orthodox Christianity. And there’s a pleading, even a begging, to Jewish and Christian prayer – please God, release us from our suffering, please God, free our people, please God, heal our sickness, please God, send comfort, please please please. This is very different to the proud self-reliance of Stoicism. Epictetus wrote: ‘Zeus says: “If you want any good, get it from yourself.” Well, you can see the difference.

3) Christianity believes in grace

Elaborating on the last quote from Epictetus – Christians believe much more in external assistance from God, in the Holy Spirit, in Grace and its power to save people and transform them, when they have reached rock bottom. The Stoics think any help must come from your reason, not from God (although our reason of course comes from God). This is a major difference, and one of the reasons I moved beyond Stoicism to Christianity, because I believe in grace – in moments when God lifts us up and puts us back on our feet.

4) Christianity believes in Satan!

Another massive difference is that Christians tend to believe in the Enemy – in an evil rival to God who somehow or other is allowed to control a lot of what happens here on Earth, and who seeks to tempt us and to destroy us. Not only that, but the Enemy (Satan, Lucifer) has a whole horde of evil minions too. Stoicism sometimes talks about the Enemy (in Epictetus for example), but the Enemy is typically our lower self, our bad habits or (in Platonism and Roman Stoicism) our more bestial self as opposed to our more divine self.

The Christian universe is, therefore, in some ways a much weirder, more polytheistic, and more dangerous place, teeming with evil spirits trying to destroy us. The Greek philosopher would look on the world of the gospels – filled with people possessed by devils – and think ‘what superstitious madness is this?’ There is barely a reference to demonic possession in Greek philosophy. If someone is ill, it’s because of bad thinking or bad habits. In some ways, I think this is a more helpful attitude from a therapeutic perspective – if someone has depression or anxiety or hears voices, it will just freak them out even more if you say ‘this is the Devil trying to drag you to Hell for eternity’.

I often find Christianity (and modern Christians) quite off-putting in their belief in evil demons. It always seemed quite primitive to me, like a backward step after Socrates rather than an evolution forward. But then I suppose Socrates had a daemon too, and the Stoics did believe in pursuing eudaimonia (having a kindly daemon within) as opposed to kakadaimonia(having an evil daemon within)…so maybe there are more spirits in Greek philosophy than we realize! And maybe Greek philosophy is a bit naive in its understanding of evil, and its belief that evil is always simply ignorance – Dostoevsky would certainly argue this. Which brings me to the next point.

5) Human nature is fallen in Christianity, and perfectible in Greek philosophy

In Christianity, because of Original Sin or what-have-you, human nature is inherently fallen, inherently prone to fucking up. We can use our reason to improve ourselves, but we have to rely on God to forgive and help us, and we’re unlikely to be perfect while we’re here on Earth. In Greek philosophy, human nature is perfectible through reason alone. Nature has made us rational, and we can use our reason to become like Socrates. We can become a virtuoso in the art of living.

To me, while I struggle with the Christian story of how we got so fucked up (the apple, the serpent etc), I find their definition of human nature more realistic than Socrates’ or Aristotle’s. If our nature is inherently rational and all we have to do is ‘follow our nature’, how come there are so few sages? We’re like a species of plant where only one in every billion blossoms. It’s a pretty fucked up sort of nature.

6) Christians are much more certain about the afterlife than Stoics

Christians have a much clearer eschatology than Stoics – although of course this has evolved over the centuries and hardened into ecclesiastical doctrine. They believe, on the whole, in the resurrection of the body either in heaven for eternity, or in hell / annihilation. Catholics also believed, for many centuries, in purgatory. Stoics, by contrast, are not sure what they believe about the afterlife – they barely mention it. Plato, by the by, seemed to believe in reincarnation (like Pythagoras), but this may have been just a story.

Christians also have a very different eschatology to Stoics – they believe that all of creation is fallen, but it will all be redeemed in the End of Days, when Jesus returns. Stoics, by contrast, believe things will just carry on for a bit, and then everything will burst into flames, and then everything will start again. Both pretty wacky theories, although the Stoic story seems to be closer to where astrophysics is at now, with its theories of multiple big bangs.

Another important difference with regard to modern Stoicism and Christianity is that many modern Stoics are atheist and don’t necessarily believe in the Logos or Providence, but still believe in developing your rational agency to do the right thing. So in that sense, one of the things that appeals to me about Stoicism is it appeals to both theists (Christian, Muslim, Jewish) and hardcore atheists like, say, Derren Brown.

7) Christians are much bigger on community, on myth, ritual, music, dance, symbolism, stories

This is a huge difference, and I think is the reason Christianity became a world religion and Stoicism never did. It appeals not just to the intellect but to the emotions, the unconscious, the body, and to our desire to come together to celebrate life and God. This is one of the big reasons I have moved beyond Stoicism to Christianity – my desire for collective religious life is not satisfied by philosophy clubs, much as I love philosophy clubs. They leave too much of me out.

8) In Christianity, love is more important than rationality

As Jean Vanier put it, a mentally disabled person would to Aristotle be defective, sub-human. To Christ, they would be just as beautiful as any other child of God. I think this is partly why Christianity is much better at community than Stoicism – because communities need to be grounded in love, not rationality. If a community is grounded in rationality, it immediately leads to a stiff hierarchy of the rational. Love, by contrast, resists hierarchies. Love is gentle, vulnerable, humble, serving.

Well, those are some initial thoughts. What have I got wrong or missed out?

This piece was first published on Jules’ blog Philosophy for Life in November 2013 and is reproduced here with his kind permission. 


10 thoughts on Features: Stoicism and Christianity by Jules Evans

  1. Hi Jules!
    Good to touch base again! Hope you have recovered from your trip to Dublin! Been following the Stoic events closely and penned a small piece for your blog there on logotherapy and stoicism. We’ve had successful days here on Marcus Aurelius and now planning one on Epictetus for January.
    Anyway, re your article on Stoicism and Christianity – I thought I would post some of my reflections and responses to your points raised. Re the similarities:
    1) that Stoicism is more monotheistic than Christianity – I would say no! Christianity teaches one God in three and three in One but it is still One (monotheism) not three different gods (tritheism).
    2) Iris Murdoch: ‘I am forever returning to my still centre’ – yes, this is the ground of being when things fall apart and the Centre cannot hold (aka Yeats) – it’s what Frankl called the ‘noetic core’ (imago Dei in theistic language). Agree we all need something bigger to live for (mission or cause) – what Frankl would label self-transcendence.
    3) The God within.. I am reminded of Chesterton: when Mr Jones says he is going to worship the god within, Mr Jones is worshipping Mr Jones! I think we also have emphasise God’s transcendence too and not just His immanennce.
    5) Your fifth point: Frankl likewise speaks of ‘monoanthropism’ which is similar to the cosmopolis (Voegelin’s ‘universal humanity’).
    In relation to the differences:
    1) Not sure I would agree that the Jewish God is hungry for our love! God is not needy in His divinity. But know what you mean at the level of metaphor. Perhaps one could say the God of the Hebrew prophets is…
    2) Christianity is needy?! Some Christians are! I explored this (Freudian) view in my book ‘Hermeneutics and the Psychoanalysis of Religion’.
    3) Christianity is committed to belief in Satan .. again, some Christians believe in Satan but, again, it’s what we MEAN by this – metaphor or literal etc? Hermeneutic discernment is crucial. Paul Ricoeur wrote: ‘There is no evil being, only the evil done by me’. Few Catholic theologians would accept the existence of a being called ‘Satan’. As for evil that is regarded as a privatio bonum with no independent ontological reality. Certainly, ‘Satan’ is not coeval with God. As for evil demons and possessions there are people possessed by the demons of greed, and lust, and mental disorders etc..
    6) Your final point about Christianity being ‘certain’; only the psychotic is certain! Certainty abolishes faith and hope; it is Gnosis – the ultimate seduction but not Christianity; see Mark’s prayer: ‘I believe, help thou my unbelief’ (and Dostoyevsky too).
    Just some responses. Really enjoyed it. Thanks Jules.

  2. Thanks for opening this discussion.
    Would I be right to encapsulate the difference between Stoicism and Christianity as:
    Stoics believe that men can distinguish between good and bad, and lead the good life through their own efforts, through the use of intellect and self-discipline.
    Christians believe that men are by their nature sinful & inadequate and that they are only redeemed through the death and resurrection of Christ, and the grace of God, which can be accepted but not earned.
    Christians who believe in the perfectibility of man through his own efforts without the necessity of God’s grace were condemned at the time of St Augustine as heretical ( Pelagianism ).
    But we are all probably all instinctively Pelagians these days.

    • Angela Gilmour says:

      Hi Jules
      I really enjoyed reading your blog which for me a non academic questioning cradle Catholic put into words many of my own feelings. I too really enjoy that collective coming together of my local community to sing and celebrate the achievements of the past week, to receive guidance and support for the next week. The rule of St Benedict which I try to live by to me mirrors the stoic exercises. If we follow the 10 commandments they too should lead us to happiness. I have really benefited from Stoic Week and have continued this week drawing deeper understanding and inner peace. Thank you.

  3. Elaine says:

    Thank you for this it is just the explanation I was looking for. Any references to other religions?

  4. Elaine says:

    How about Hindu beliefs? Was ghandi a stoic?

    • Patrick Ussher says:

      Richard Sorabji has written a book, ‘Gandhi and the Stoics’, which argues that although Gandhi was probably not directly influenced by the Stoics, he embodied many Stoic qualities and attitudes.

  5. Carl Ploss says:

    The original Stoa cannot be found (except in fragments); the original church is long gone — but the spirit of Zeno and Socrates, like the spirit of St. Paul and Jesus, can be invoked
    by anyone with the humility to search in earnest. The actual stones on which they trod may be found here and there, and may in fact have been used to build the newer porches and basilicas — just as their actual words may be found here and there and used to refresh the speech of the current day. Some mixture of authentic and inauthentic, old and new, resident and visitor, eternal and temporal, is a part of both enterprises, of those who reconstruct ancient philosophy as well as those who reconstruct the early church. What matters is the search, the humility, the earnestness. Do philosophy and religion argue? Of course. Did the various sects of philosophy not argue? Did the various church factions not argue? The purest of the pure cannot be seen with the eye, nor heard with the ear — hardly glimpsed by mind itself. We break bread, share some wine, speak for a while . . .

  6. […] For a succinct yet comprehensive comparison of Stoicism and Christianity see this article by the philosopher Jules Evans. To discern a secular philosophy for modern life from the teachings […]

  7. […] For a succinct yet comprehensive comparison of Stoicism and Christianity see this article by the philosopher Jules Evans. To discern a secular philosophy for modern life from the teachings […]

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.