Without a doubt, Constantine’s conversion to Christianity
changed the Western Civilization as well as Church history. He set the stage
for making a minority, persecuted, religious sect into the most powerful
institution in the Western world. But at a cost, for the State reserved to
itself the right to intervene and control church affairs. So the question one would ask is: Is it possible that the Church would have been as powerful as
it was in the Middle Ages had a policy of separation of church and state
defined their relationship from the very beginning?
I suppose what is really being asked here is whether or not
the Church could survive its infancy and transition to adulthood without the
“power of empire” to bolster or look over it. In this mismatched marriage of
opposites: State and the Church was there a beneficial end result for the nascent
Christianity. My answer is simple and succinct. Yes, I believe that the
symbiotic relationship between Christianity and the State was beneficial to the
survival and propagation of the Church (universal) that allowed it to grow to
the magnitude it did. By the time of
Charlemagne we will virtually see a Christendom or what amounted to a Christian
Kingdom in the consolidation of power in Charlemagne.
Constantine seems to have initially used Christianity for
political expediency. This is alluded to in our text (p.119). Interestingly I
believe we are seeing an image here with Constantine and Christianity that’s
similar to Nebuchadnezzar / Daniel and Artaxerxes / Nehemiah. Although
Nebuchadnezzar, Artaxerexes and Constantine may have done things for selfish or
political reasons, so too we saw David, Solomon and even Abraham do the same
that pushed history and kingdom forward. God is sovereign over history and
kings.
Daniel 2:21~He changes times and seasons; he removes kings
and sets up kings; he gives wisdom to the wise and knowledge to those who have
understanding;
In the long run, a sovereign God’s will, shall be done and
we see this in the symbiotic relationship of the Church and State at strategic
points in history. If God had done this in the Old Testament, why would He not do
it in the New Testament age? Had Christianity not been assimilated into the
dominate power of the time and given its resources, it may have never exceeded
“backwater” status and survived the barbarian incursions. It seems as if it was
a marriage of necessity (or sovereignty). So instead of a dead extinct Faith we
at least have a somewhat healthy church to survive the barbarian onslaught and
to some extent had the resources to even begin to be missionaries to meet the
warlike barbarian masses [Gregory of Tours, Clovis, etc.] (Cairns 123)
Because of Missionary work like that of Patrick of Ireland,
there were bastions of culture in the Dark Ages in places like Ireland that was
a home to monks and monasteries (Cairns 124). Because of the work of people
like Augustine in the City of God, we have a philosophy that allowed believers
to look towards the end goal of history, that is beyond history and in the
hands of an eternal God (Cairns 142). This in turn helped sustain a church through
coming hard times.
Interestingly, we see the partial “paganization” of
Christianity that was due to successful missionary efforts, mass conversions
and a massive influx of pagans. I suppose this is not unlike the syncretism of
Israel in the Old Testament. Although there was syncretistic blending, in the
end God purified his church and purged the unwanted elements. Although things
crept into the Faith that shouldn’t have God will eventually rectify and set
His people straight. We will eventually see some rectification of the Church
and their abuses after the Medieval and Dark Ages in the form of the
Reformation.
I guess in the end we see things have happened again in
God’s world for a reason. History unfolds as God plans because it is His-story.
In the crucible of persecution we see the formulation of Canon and Creeds,
dogma and doctrines. This strengthens the faithful in courage to actually go
out as apologists and polemicists further winning more adherents. Adherents as
a power base is political power whether it is realized or not by the adherents.
Those in power and stature like Constantine took note of this and find it
politically expedient to cater to this “power in numbers” thereby granting
religious freedom that will positively affect these growing Christian ranks
[Edict of Milan]. Subsequently, Theodosius I made Christianity the official
State religion. (Cairns 120) Even at this point Constantine realizes that he
might as well take on Christianity as an ally to preserve classical culture.
This is nearly prophetic in its insight as it will probably be the power and
might of Rome even in a diminished form that allows the Faith to survive the
coming barrage of pagans in the form of barbarians. The freedom granted by
Constantine and Theodosuis allows the building of the Church and therefore
churches (Cairns 154). An edifice is only as strong as the cornerstone it is
laid upon. The Church being laid upon Christ assured its survival. The Church
being helped by the power of empire behind it (even with some of the errors)
aided it and pushed it along.
[I'll be elaborating more on this in later posts.]
[I'll be elaborating more on this in later posts.]
Cairns, Earle Edwin. "Chapter 11: The Church Faces the
Empire and Barbarians." Christianity Through the Centuries: A History of
the Christian Church. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Pub., 1996.
118-124. Print.
Cairns, Earle Edwin. "Chapter 12: Conciliar Controversy
and Creedal Development." Christianity Through the Centuries: A History of
the Christian Church. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Pub., 1996.
125-133. Print.
Davidson, Ivor J.. "Chapter 1: Constantine and the
Pagan Religions." The Baker History of the Church from Constantine to the
Medieval World, 312-600. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 2005. 19-46. Print.
No comments:
Post a Comment