The Church Becomes Official

November 11, 1962
Rochester

Sermon Series: Our Judeo-Christian Heritage
9. The Church Becomes Official

To change from being a voluntary association of believers, few in number, to being the official religion of the Roman Empire, with every citizen compelled to acknowledge that religion, is to move from a better to a poorer religion. Co-ercion is always less moral than freedom. Such a radical alteration occurred before Christianity was four centuries old.

We have observed how the church changed from fellowships of simple believers to formal organization, ruled by the bishop , expressed in sacrament and liturgy by a hierarchy, with conformity guaranteed by a creed. The Church changed toward these ways in the first two hundred years in order to confront heresies, define the differences in religions and simplify the instruction of uneducated converts. If it is regrettable that the Church gave up spontaneity for formality in the first two hundred years, it is deplorable that the succeeding two centuries culminated in the end of freedom and the sovereignty of compulsion. This, then, is an account of a sequence of growth, persecution, tolerance and tyranny. The relevance of this segment of Christian history is found in the question, what should make religion binding upon people?

By the time the third century began, the organization of the Christian Church had expanded. The bishop required numerous assistants for the work of their dioceses. The organization had become formal. The efficient and far-flung administrative system of the Roman Empire was a model for the Church and religious bureaucracy, too, touched all parts of the Empire. The Church had grown considerably in numbers, but still claimed only a small fraction of the people. Most scholars calculate that perhaps one in twenty persons in the larger cities had adopted Christianity. A controversy, not likely to ever find unanimous agreement, was the status of the Bishops of Rome in the early centuries. Roman Catholic thought has insisted for centuries that the Bishops of Rome have been the successors of Peter, were "keepers of the keys," and unquestioned voice of authority in faith and morals for all Christians. Historians find no unquestioned evidence for the pre-eminent place of the Roman Bishop for centuries after Christian beginnings. There is considerable historical evidence that the bishops of all cities were equal in authority. Furthermore, when one studies Christian beginnings, there is a much more persuasive case to be made that Paul, not Peter, was the founder of the Christian Church.

In the second and third centuries, although growth was slow, there was a dynamism of ideas and vigor of spirit which was beginning to make its mark on the ancient world.

The effects were observable in ways that would impress us today. As the historian Hans Lietzmann observes, "A number of callings were not reconcilable with Christianity, and had to be given up when application was made. Here were included not only ... prostitution, but also the disreputable arts of the actor, the gladiator, the racing chariot driver.... Naturally, the priest of a pagan temple, an astrologer, or other soothsayer was inadmissible. A sculptor or painter had to undertake not to depict gods, and a schoolmaster was recommended to abandon his calling because he was required to deal with pagan mythology in the course of giving instruction.... A soldier had to undertake not to kill and not to swear oaths; anyone already Christian was forbidden to become a soldier." (HISTORY OF THE EARLY CHURCH, Vol. II, p. 151-2)

In spite of the growth of creeds, there was continuous intellectual ferment. There was a wide variety of interpretations of Christianity, as different emphases of oriental and Greek thought mingled with, or confronted, Judaic and early gospel teachings. The famed Christian teacher, Clement of Alexandria, (d. 215), spoke of Christian differences as the "blooming of a hundred flowers."

The centuries before the Church became official were the times of persecution, too. In spite of dramatic legends and colorful books of martyrs, the historians approach the matter of persecution of Christians with considerable caution. That persecution of Christians began when Nero sought to divert suspicion towards them as arsonists who burned Rome, seems well-founded. Equally assured is the opinion that persecution was sporadic, at widely-spaced intervals. Origen, the famous Christian philosopher of the 2nd century, reported that the number of martyrs was not considerable. (See Gibbon, Ch. 16, DECLINE AND FALL OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE, p. 104-5). Gibbon, whose knowledge of ancient sources is astonishing, commented, "But I cannot determine what I ought to transcribe, till I am satisfied what I ought to believe." (Ibid, p. 144)

If, because of our limited knowledge of fact, we should be reserved about persecution by the Roman Empire on any wide-spread and persisting basis, we may also recognize with appreciation, that there were Christians who gave up their occupations because of inconsistency with Christian standards, that there were Christian soldiers who threw down their weapons because they were convinced that the way of Jesus was one of peace and non-violence, that there were Christian martyrs who died in the arenas because for them, death as a Christian was much better than life as a lapsed Christian. Anyone who considers this quality of devotion as unremarkable should also confront his own degree of willingness to permit his religion to interfere with his job, his patriotism or his life.

The advent of toleration and subsequently, a favored position for the Christian Church, comprises a congruence of remarkable men and dramatic events. Sometimes I wonder, that if Jesus could have foreseen the Emperor Constantine, the Council of Nicea and the official sovereignty of Christianity, whether this wandering preacher of the Kingdom of God would have ever spoken a word or raised a finger.

The Emperor Constantine had to eliminate rival Caesars before he became sole ruler of the Empire. What sort of man was this ruler who paved the way for Christianity to become official? Christian writers have heaped adulation upon him, but the more realistic historians have viewed Constantine as a shrewd, ambitious politician who appraised Christianity as possessing the vigor and charm which would aid him in the consolidation of power.

In 311, before the contest for empire was decided, Constantine and Galerius issued an edict of toleration to Christians. This was hardly more than grudging concession; by no means an emancipation proclamation.

Omens for the future were best illustrated by one of the most famous and least substantial myths of Christianity. In 312, when preparing for battle against Maxentius, his chief rival in the West, Constantine asserted that he saw a lighted cross in the sky, with the words, IN HOC SIGNO VINCES, (in this sign thou shalt conquer.) (The Nazarene, Jesus, had become the God of War!) The vision may have been myth, but Constantine did win the battle of Milvain Bridge. From that time on, Constantine was the friend and protector of Christianity. Although not baptized until his deathbed, he acted as the determined sponsor of the Christian Church. He rebuilt churches; returned property formerly confiscated and he freed clergy from the necessity of military service. (One historian reports that Constantine by this exemption created the problem of a rush of wealthy citizens seeking ordination. See 20 CENTURIES OF CHRISTIANITY, Hutchinson and Garrison, Harcourt & Brace, 1959, p. 49-51.)

Shortly after deposing of his last rival, Constantine was instrumental in the organization of the Council of Nicea, 325 A.D. This was one of the most important gatherings in all Christian history. The issue was theological, but Constantine wanted an end to controversies, because they interfered with his planning that a new universal Christian religion would be a support and a harmonizing influence in the "new Rome" which he planned would see an end to the decay and decline of Empire.

The theological dispute concerned the nature of Jesus Christ. Arius, a distinguished churchman of Alexandria, leader of Eastern thought, believed that Jesus was a created being. God was eternal, but Jesus was not. "The Son has a beginning, but God is without beginning." Arius believed Jesus to be God, but not one with the Father in "essence or eternity." Bishop Alexander of Alexandria took a different position. To him, the Son was uncreated, of the same essence of the father, eternal from the beginning.

Constantine, concerned with unity in the Empire called a council of the entire Church. Constantine provided transportation to Nicea for all the ecclesiastical delegated, from all over the Empire. Probably there were 318 bishops, each with his own retainers. The total number involved must have reached two thousand. Thus, as historian Philip Schaff noted, here at Nicea, there was a union of ecclesiastical council and the political state, wherein the Christian Church was vested with imperial power, but subservient to the Emperor.

There were several matters to be debated, but the Arian dispute was the most important. On May 20, 325, the sessions were opened in the Imperial Palace, with regular meetings beginning after Constantine, clad in cloth of gold, studded with precious stones, was seated in a golden chair.

The debate ensued and the position of Arius, argued by Eusebius of Caesare, was soon rejected and a compromise formula sought. Constantine, knowing that Arianism was not popular in the Western part of the Empire, (north Africa, Rome, Gaul, Spain), was influential in the adoption of the Nicene definition, which, while it failed to satisfy everybody, all but two bishops signed the creed. These two, along with Arius, were sent into exile by Constantine. The writings of Arius were burned. Book-burning seems an irresistible temptation to those who get unrestrained power. Constantine might have hoped that he had secured the results he wanted, but synods as soon as two years later questioned every conclusion of Nicea. There were to be more church councils before the Christian church could define or refine its orthodoxy. One is in progress in Rome at this moment, the Second Vatican Council.

The beliefs of Arius persisted for hundreds of years, despite official disapproval and censorship. The Germanic tribes, converted to Christianity by Arian missionaries, maintained this theological position until the 8th century at least. Socinianism, the 15th century Hungarian fore-runner of Unitarianism, could be considered a re-statement of the Arian position in the Nicean controversy.

Although Constantine favored Christianity, he did not make this religion compulsory. But fifty years later, the Church became official. Caesar Theodosius II, issued a series of proclamations which ended the voluntary nature of religion. Christianity became the only religion legally permitted in the empire. To reject Christianity was to commit treason against the state; the punishment for treason was death.

The church became official. A wrong proposition became law - that social cohesion and orderly government were possible only when one religion, one and only, was permitted. The continuing consequences of this erroneous premise have influenced events up to our own time and will present problems for our children, and theirs.

Did the Christians enjoying power and receiving the heavy flow of converts, which official approval started, ever look back on Matthew (20/26) where these words were attributed to Jesus, "You know that the rulers of the heathen lord it over them, and their great men tyrannize over them. It is not to be so among you, but whoever wants to be great among you must be your slave, just as the Son of Man has come not to be waited on, but to wait on other people and give his life as a ransom for many."

In the closing years of the fourth century, events had come full circle. The persecuted Church became the persecuting Church. Pagan temples were destroyed; schools of philosophy closed. The Church inflicted more evils on its own whom they named "heretics," than ever had been the victims of so-called "pagans." The Christians killed each other in far greater numbers than Romans killed Christians in all the persecutions. (See Gibbon, p. 147-8). Not long after the Church became official, the pacifist was declared a heretic, subject to the punishment for treason - death.

Many have observed that the Sermon on the Mount has almost no theological content, but rather, great ethical emphasis. The theme is how we should behave, not what we must believe. The Nicene Creed produced under the watchful eye of the Emperor and on his expense account is entirely metaphysical, with no trace of ethical standards. This omission is symptomatic of sliding standards as the Church was on the way to becoming official.

This triumph with which the Roman emperors crowned the Church in the fourth century has been called the "Fatal Gift." Grateful churchmen bestowed on Constantine the utterly un-deserved title, "the equal of the apostles." Says Herbert Muller, (Constantine) "inaugurated the lasting confusion in Christendom between the things that are Caesar's and the things that are God's."

There is much more to be said of the Christian Church, virtues to recite, vices to relate. But the transition from persecuted sect to official church demonstrates what we should never forget: unlimited power is a temptation to unrestrained corruption to which any institution, even the Church, may yield. No institution comprised of people - and this is the only kind of institution of any meaning to us - can ever be given power without reserving ways to keep power in check; and ways to remove power when it is abused.

What should be the power of the religious institution to bind people? The answer is, only in those ways people choose voluntarily to be bound.

Somewhere along the line, the Christians made an enormous mistake. There was democracy and social equality in that on the whole, the clergy had been recruited from all sectors of the population, rich and poor, slave and free. But once the clergy was ordained, a system of self-perpetuating power was maintained. The right of the members of the congregation in Unitarian Universalist churches to ordain their clergymen, rather than the right of other clergymen to ordain their successors, is one of the healthiest safeguards we can maintain to ensure that our self-governing operation will be democratic in fact as well as theory.

When one pursues the winding trails of religion and government through history, we come again and again to the issue of freedom. The freedom to choose is no less the irreplaceable condition in religion than politics. This, as we shall see in discussing modern issues of Church and State, is the liberty most easily submerged in a confusion of irrelevant protest: Centuries before the Church became official, Paul, writing to his friends in Rome, in his most clearly theological letter says, "that we may be mutually encouraged by each other's faith." Then he goes on to make one of the most extensive and persuasive arguments for Christian theology, recognized as strong reasoning even by those of us who do not accept this Christian theology. But Paul, even when asserting his most urgent convictions, never made the mistake of the Church when it became official, pronouncing, "accede to this or die a heretic." Paul said, "let us encourage each other's faith."

And so may it be with us, no matter how wide our range of differences, no matter how provocative our distinctions, no matter how passionate the temper of our convictions.