The Church in the Pre-Constantinian Era - Essay Example

?In relating to the surrounding culture in a post-Christendom world, what lessons should the Church learn from the pre-Constantinian era? The Church in the twenty-first century is facing many challenges and one significant factor in this situation is the process of secularisation which has been at work over the last hundred years or more. Historians trace a long period of broadly favourable conditions for Christianity, in Europe and the countries which it has influenced at least, starting with the conversion of Emperor Constantine the Great (272-337) to Christianity, reaching a peak in the Middle Ages in which the Church dominated education, industry and culture across most of the Western world, and ending with the Great Wars of the twentieth century and the rise of modern and post-modern atheist, nihilist and relativist philosophies. In the twenty-first century the broadly Christian basis of society has given way to something much more diffuse. In particular the absence of a Christian values to underpin governmental regimes is resulting in an increasing number of potential conflicts between Church and State, and suggests that the Church needs to find ways of adapting to a new role outside the main value system of the majority of people. This paper examines the situation of the pre-Constantinian early Church and the way it related to the cultures surrounding it. The Church’s early relationship with Jewish, Roman and Greek culture is examined, and experiences gathered in this pre-Constantinian period are applied to the contemporary situation of the Church, showing that in terms of identity, ethnic relations, attitudes to war, social customs and political engagement, the modern Church has much to learn from its own earlier history. In modern times, as in pre-Constantinian times, Christianity is not the accepted “norm”, and its doctrines are not perceived as the core values of society at large. Instead of sustaining and promoting a stable Church/State symbiosis, which we see in the post-Constantinian conceptof “Christendom”, the Church finds itself on all fronts in danger of entering into conflict through contamination from and resistance to the surrounding cultures. The implications of isolation from the dominant norms are perhaps most significant in the area of evangelism. In pre-Constantinian times, as in present time, any Christian outreach work must start from an assumption that people will require intensive mentoring, apprenticeship and instruction in even the most basic doctrines.1 Nothing can be taken for granted, in terms of factual knowledge or moral training in the family, and the position of outsider that the modern Church occupies means that it must find ways of operating that help to clarify, define and maintain its position in relation to a somewhat hostile environment . The first lesson that the modern Church must learn from this earlier stage in its history is therefore to revisit and re-emphasize its core message through teaching of basic Christian facts and principles. One aspect of early Church history which has perhaps been underplayed by later commentators is the extent to which it harmonized with the cultures around it in the very beginning. An important factor in its first spurt of growth was its focus in cosmopolitan centres, where a multitude of different cultures co-existed with each other without any problem: “Absorption and adaptation were to mark the progress of the church both in east and west so long as it remained predominantly urban.”2 The trading cities of the Mediterranean were a melting pot for different races but also for different ideas, and the fledgling church took advantage of this relative freedom to develop its structures and systems, often taking selected elements from different cultural groups around them. Celebration of the Jewish Sabbath, for example, was a custom that was adapted for Christian use but was clearly borrowed from the Jewish tradition. Much of the rhetoric and some philosophical texts for exposition and teaching were borrowed freely from the Greeks, and wealthy urban Christians often enjoyed an expensive Greek or Roman education with its emphasis on classical literature and the liberal arts. It is only in the more conservative areas of the countryside that major conflicts between the belief system of Christians and that of other locals began to take a nasty turn. In the rural areas of Egypt and North Africa widespread poverty, combined with very harsh taxation regimes, resulted in a radicalisation of Christian communities and a more overt opposition to secular authorities. This in turn resulted in instances of rebellion and violent persecution, which had the effect of making the Christian groups in these places still more radical, and even prompted some analysts to see in them a threat to the supremacy even of Roman and Greek authority. What these examples of differing urban and rural development show, is that care must be taken to avoid any blanket analysis of the whole of Christianity, as if it were a single phenomenon with a consistent path of development. The truth is that different branches of thought prevailed, even in these earliest times, resulting in a spectrum of opinion which was quite significantly influenced by varying local conditions. Communities were finding their own solutions to questions of structure, ideological content and practices and taking shape in multiple different directions. Local conditions varied, and Christian teaching and practice varied to match. For modern Christians, this knowledge may come as something of a surprise, since there is a tendency to see the early Church as a more perfect, radical and monolithic type of Christianity than our present fractured community of different churches and denominations. The second lesson for modern Churches is therefore to learn to tolerate diversity and different perspectives within itself, because this flexibility is needed if the Church is to be effective in all kinds of local context. In the words of Kevin Ward, the postmodern church must become “much looser, less institutionalised, more eclectic, fluid rather than solid.”3 It was important to early Christian communities that they maintain connections with other groups and nations around them. In the part of the world where they set up their churches, they came into contact mainly with Jews and Hellenes, and they shared significant elements of cultural heritage with both of these. Evidence for the overlap in many aspects of daily life can be seen in the fact that pagan (i.e. Greek or Roman) betrothal and marriage customs differed from Christian customs only in the fact that Christian families refrained from the blood sacrifices that the pagans used.4 It is true that some of the Church fathers advise the involvement of bishops in blessing these events as being a good thing, but this mention shows precisely that there tended not to be much visible presence of the Christian church leadership in these events. Christians fitted in with the customs of their region and time, even down to the age at which young people married and rules regarding separation and divorce. Alongside these elements of similarity with local pagan practices, there were also some points of departure from Christians: the double standard of fidelity which tolerated adultery by husbands in circumstances, but adultery by wives in no circumstances at all, is tolerated in Roman law, but not in Christian teachings, at least in theory.5 The third lesson from the history of the very early church is that some adaptation to local customs is natural, and on contentious issues of marital and sexual relationships, the early Church shows the modern Church an example of considerable pragmatism, in holding up the Christian ideal, and setting limits to their tolerance, but condoning many local variations as well. Consistency in practice across the whole of the Christian church was never a realistic option. One strategy that was promoted especially by Clement of Alexandria and Origen was to represent Christians as a separate race apart from other races, with the major difference that this race was one that was open to all people, and not just those born within it.6 The way to membership of this special race is by being saved through faith, which makes it superior to other race identities formed by kinship. This shows early Christians appreciating both the relatively fixed nature of race and ethnicity, and the possibility of fluid and changing identities. Christians see themselves as able to transcend the binary oppositions that were current in their environment such as Greek and barbarian or Jew and gentile.7 To a Greek or Roman outsider, many of the features which distinguished the Christians from other groups was a remarkable similarity with the rituals and beliefs of Judaism. Jews and Christians alike were prepared to face martyrdom rather than submit to the erection of idolatrous pillars celebrating contemporary emperors.8 Preservation of tradition was important to the Christians, alongside many new rituals. This shows the modern Church how to blend the past and present in a creative new mix for the future. Christianity has universal claims, but also a view of race and ethnicity that allows people to maintain elements of their prior identity at a lesser level, and this reasoning shows the whole of humanity in a new unified structure. Racial and ethnic differences are not wiped out by conversion to Christianity, but subsumed within this new universalising perspective. The universalism of early Christianity is not the same as the conquering empire construct of the Romans, or the civilising expansion construct of the Greeks, or the racial separatism of the Jews, but a new way of conceiving identity in which religion was the most important dimension, but certainly not the only one. This shows the early Church promoting cultural difference, and rejecting racism for its exclusive tendencies. A big issue for the early Church, as in the present time, was the question of how far Christians could or should be involved in service in the military forces. Daryl Charles questions a central assumption among modern Christians that the pre-Constantinian Church was pacifist both in its teachings and its practice, and argues that it is not so much the fighting and bloodshed that kept Christians out of serving in the Roman army, as the need to swear an oath of allegiance, and the danger of exposure to cults of idolatry that came with the act of serving in the army.9 There is evidence in the writings of Tertullian and others that many Christians did in fact serve in the Roman army, as for example when Christian soldiers on the battlefield are credited with invoking a miraculous storm through prayer, which saved the army through the intervention of divine thunderbolts and rain. 10 Such evidence proves that it is historically inaccurate to assume service in military action for any purpose was forbidden until a radical step-change in attitude which took place in the time of Constantine. The truth is that early Christians did serve in the army and that there was very little comment in this period among theologians about whether or not it was permissible. The debate about pacifism and Christianity began in earnest only after Constantine’s rule. Obedience to the authority of secular powers is a central tenet of Christianity following the instruction of Jesus to “Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s,”11 and chapter 13 of Paul’s letter to the Romans which argues that rulers are ordained of God and that they bear a sword in order to avenge evil: “...the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God.”12 A close reading of these passages and of some of the Church fathers reveals that while love and peace is a goal of the Christian life, pacifism in an absolute sense is not taught in the early church: “... the authorities exist for one purpose, and that is to preserve the moral-social order. The use of power – and by extension force – is thus the essence of politics and governing.”13 It appears from the evidence, therefore, that military service was compatible with Christian faith in the Early Church, and while there is a clear emphasis on avoiding violence in personal and local relationships, and many Christians did choose to avoid the path of military service, there is no express teaching against serving the state for the greater good and stability of society at large. A spectrum of opinion on the pacifist position is discernible both in the early Church fathers and in common practice among Christians of the time.14 There is a danger that some parts of modern the Christian spectrum are looking to the pre-Constantinian era as a model of pacifism, and are “slipping almost unwittingly into a crypto-pacifism. One reason for this is that they are trying to take up a more critical attitude to the state. In part this is a guilt-ridden reaction against a too-close identification with it in the past.”15 The problem of a pacifist position in the modern world is that it opts out of the responsibility for dealing with the awful potential outcomes of inventions such as nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction, and modern technological warfare. Some argue that it is inadmissible for Christians to serve in forces which use these methods, while others argue that it is imperative that Christians do get involved in the military side of things since “it is immoral to allow the most devastating weapons to be solely in the hands of the most ruthless powers.”16 The early church shows that individuals and communities differed on this point, and once again, flexibility is the key lesson to learn from this. In the first three centuries of its existence the Christian Church was distinguishable from other communities by the nature and intensity of their love for one another, and this was a major plank of their strategy of evangelism.17 They lived their community lives differently from other groups, but at the same time many of their customs and practices borrowed aspects from the surrounding mainstream cultures. Scholars have noted how the evolution of the early Christian Church owes quite a lot to Jewish and Roman as well as Greek ideas and practices. Principles such as tithing, and setting aside funds for the protection of widows and orphans are taken directly from Jewish traditions.18 The way that the role of bishops in the early church developed, for example, owes much to the way that Roman society was ordered, with an emphasis on respected property-owning individuals who took on a patriarchal authority over matters in their own domain, coming together if necessary to work out solutions to larger scale issues: “An underappreciated element of the art of Roman government lay in a preference for leaving scope to the independent judgment of trusted men.”19 In political and administrative structures, the church borrowed from the cultures around it in those early times, and this is also a useful lesson for the modern church. The analogy that Jesus used of new wine (the gospel) and old wineskins (traditional forms)20 can be applied to the structures and forms the Church. Ecclesiastical structures owe much to Roman culture. It is hardly surprising then that many of them have become outdated and excessively rigid for modern needs: “In effect we must pay attention to what God the Holy Spirit is doing in a particular time and place. Forms and practices are not sacrosanct.”21 The whole debate over tolerance, and intolerance, and how far Christians can and should accept the existence and promotion of other beliefs is one which existed in pre Constantinian times and which still causes difficulties today. There is in one sense an in-built intolerance in Christianity, since it makes claims of exclusive truth , but on the other hand there is a balancing belief in a principle of religious toleration for all faiths. It is not a coincidence that that one of the first acts of Constantine as a Christian Emperor was to legislate for the tolerance of all religions, as a principle in its own right, and not just as a means to protect the rights of the emerging Christian Church.22 “This was Constantine’s art: .... in modern parlance he seized control of the discourse, using the structural ambiguities in the Christian message to isolate Christians who advocated coercive messages.... Constantine succeeded in creating a coalition of Christians and pagans who believed there was sufficient common ground for them to coexist comfortably in a government from which neither would be excluded.”23 This suggests that Constantine’s aim was to ratify the majority view of Christian communities which was for the maintenance of a creative tensions with groups who held other faiths, allowing each to develop alongside each other, avoiding extreme conflict and building a stable community in which faith could be lived out without fear of coercion and persecution. This stability allowed Christians to build their new Christian identity with some of the building blocks from the older Greek and Roman cultures, subsuming useful cultural items into their world view, and caused a gradual shift in the loyalties of people towards Christian values and belief.24 In short, the major lesson which the pre-Constantinian Church can teach the modern Church is that of flexibility and adaptation to the diverse and fragmented contexts of the modern world. In order to achieve this the modern Church must cast aside the luxury of alignment with the secular establishment and return to a fluid, creative and adaptive engagement with the world around it, even though this will result in still more diversity of practice and opinion within the Church itself. Bibliography Buell, Denise Kimber. “Rethinking the Relevance of Race for Early Christian Self-Definition.” The Harvard Theological Review 94 (4) (2001), 449-476. Buell, Denise Kimber. “Race and Universalism in Early Christianity.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 10 (4), (2002), 429-468. Chadwick, Henry. The Early Church. London: Penguin, 1993. Charles, J. Daryl. “Pacifists, Patriots, or Both?: Second Thoughts on Pre-Constantinian Early-Christian Attitudes toward Soldiering and War.” Logos: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture 13 (2), (2010), 17-55. Cooper, K. “Christianity, Private Power, and the Law from Decius to Constantine: The Minimalist View.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 19 (2) (2011), 327-343. Drake, H.A. “Lambs into Lions: Explaining Early Christian Intolerance.” Past and Present 153 (1996), 3-36. W.H.C. Frend. “Early Christianity and Society: A Jewish Legacy in the Pre-Constantinian Era.” The Harvard Theological Review 76 (1), (1983), 53-71. Grubbs, Judith Evans. “ ‘Pagan’ and ‘Christian’ Marriage: The State of the Question.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 2 (4), (1994), 361-412. Harries, Richard. “The Christian Churches and the Pacifist Temptation.” The World Today 40 (8/9), (1987), 327-333. Holy Bible. King James Version, (Cambridge). Kreider,Alan. “Military Service in the Church Orders.” Journal of Religious Ethics 31 (3), (2003), 415-442. Limberis, Vasiliki. “ ‘Religion’ as the Cipher for Identity: The Cases of Emperor Julian, Libanius, and Gregory Nazianzus.” The Harvard Theological Review 93 (4), (2000), 373-400. Murray, Stuart. Church after Christendom. Milton Keynes: Paternoster Press, 2004. Shenk, Wilbert R. “New Wineskins for New Wine: Toward a Post-Christendom Ecclesiology.” International Bulletin of Missionary Research 29 (2), (2005), 73-79. Ward, Kevin. “It might be emerging, but is it church?” Stimulus 17 (4) (2009), 2-13. Read More