End of the peaceful Church

July 23, 2009 @ Eddie → View Comments

Persecutions of all severity littered the first three centuries of our Church’s history. The first tenth of the Fourth Century was marked by a massive strike against Christianity at the request of Roman Emperor Diocletian.

In 311, the soon to be dead Emperor Galerius issued the Edict of Toleration, supposedly ending the persecution of Christians. The following year, the upstart Constantine stormed onto the imperial scene. Before the battle of Milvian Bridge, he was told in a vision, “By this sign, conquer.” That sign was either a cross or a labarum (chi-rho symbol), and was placed on the shields of Constantine’s men. Constantine defeated Maxentius and took control of the western empire of Rome.

In 313 Constantine issued the famous Edict of Milan, granting Christians back their property and goods, and moving their status up the totem poll in Rome.

And immediately Constantine needed to have control of the church. The same year the Edict of Milan was issued, Constantine called for a council in Rome to end a church dispute. That council did not end the dissension, so the Emperor called for yet another council the following year. This is from a letter addressed to Chrestus, bishop of Syracuse:

Since, therefore, we have commanded a number of bishops from a great many different places to assemble in the city of Arles, before the 1st of August, we have thought proper to write to you also.. . . It is disgraceful that shameful feuds have allowed this dispute to continue until the present time. Hopefully it can be resolved when all sides have been heard from, both those who are now at variance with one another, and those whom I have commanded to be present. By your firmness and the wise unanimity and harmony of other present, this division can be healed, in accordance with the faith, so that brotherly harmony may be restored, even if gradually.¹

In Arles, the bishops decided on a large number of issues, with Constantine himself probably overseeing the proceedings. In a letter sent to Rome’s bishop, Sylvester, we can see what some of the dissension was about: e.g. Christians cannot be chariot racers or actors, what happens to women who marry non-Christians, and more.

But there is one in particular that grabbed my attention, as well as the attention of others who understand the stark reality that the Church was patently nonviolent for the first 280 or so years of her existence. I’m referring to point 3:

Concerning those who lay down their weapons in peacetime, it is resolved that they be excluded from fellowship.²

An excommunication of all “who lay down their weapons in peacetime.” The Church was definitely into a time of relative peace, as the Empire was no longer hunting them, persecuting her members, and killing those who would not at least give lip service to the genus of the Emperor. But that’s not the “peacetime” these bishops were talking about. The Church was not in focus in this point; the Empire was. Constantine, having control of this newly exalted Christian religion, was not necessarily content or at ease with his power over the West. Licinius was in control of the East, and they would soon continue the Roman civil war. The Church was not free from the Emperor’s grasp.

What happened exactly to reach the point where the peaceful Church was now commanded by the bishops to, at minimum, acquiesce to a position of submission to the Empire overriding their nearly 300 years of peacefulness? Was it Constantine dictating Church practice, telling the bishops to include this canon? Were the bishops wanting protection for themselves and the Church and said we need Christians to stop deserting their military positions?

Countless men in the Roman military prior to the rise of Constantine converted to a devotion of Jesus and renouncing their devotion to the Emperor. They would leave the military; some because they could not pay homage to the Emperor, but most could not fight anymore. And now that Christianity was not only free of persecution but truly being raised to a special, favored status, conversions to Christianity were going be on the rapid rise. Likely, Constantine was going to make sure that the military would have this special blessing of Jesus over them (they had conquered against Maxentius with the sign of Christ). And if Christians were not going to stay in the posts, that certainly was not going to help the defense and strength of the Empire.

This marks the end of the peaceful Church. By the end of the century, not only had the fighting between bishops and their followers over control of some areas become extreme and harsh (see the battles over Alexandria involving Arius and Athanasius and their respective supporters), but the Church had relinquished control over the matter of discipline. In 385 an apparent heretic was executed. Not by the Church, but by Rome.

At that time, however, what was the difference? The Emperor was Christian, was he not? The state religion was Christian, no?

But that I will leave for another post. This one was written to point out a clear line that was drawn in the Church’s timeline. When Constantine took the helm and began to use and control the Church, and the Church let him so they could be safe from the persecutions they endured just a couple years prior.

Today, a large part of the Church is still under the control of Constantine. Especially in the tolerant, non-persecuting nation of The United States of America, the Constantinian Church reigns supreme, with doctrines and practices dictated by the kingdom of man and not the true King, Jesus.

When the Church was persecuted, hunted, ransacked: then they were free! Then there was peace. Then there was love. Then there was hope. Then there was Christ.

Maybe we should stop praying for the persecuted Christians around the world. We might need to pray for ourselves.

¹ Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History x.5.21-24

² The Canons to Sylvester from the Council of Arles

Share/Save

Michael Cornett

Reading the Canons, particularly from a particular Synod, one must take into account the direct nature of these findings...Would you also treat the one regarding actors being excommunicated the same? These were definitely talking about a distinct group of people, in a particular time. The Church has always had ecclesiastical economy when dealing with each situation. The Canons aren't by any means dogma. I'd be curious to see what sources you have on your view of Constantine's role/power in the Historical Church. I've read a lot of hypothetical garbage that has no truth or bearing on reality within the context of Ecumenical Councils, etc. It's easy to assume corruption, particularly if Constantine is somehow associated with the middle ages or modern view of the Vatican, or Church of the West. But that assumption need not break into actual findings or understandings of Truth.
martyrologist

Regarding the canons: yes, I do look at each point in the same general manner I looked at the point central to this post. I agree they are not dogma, though they were quite authoritative, each in their time (speaking of all the various councils over the centuries). But this one in particular (although there are others that went about the same) was a pivotal instance in the direction of the Church. There is a literal overturning of the ways of The Way almost overnight.

Regarding my view of Constantine: you may have read into the post a little more than intended. That's going to be my fault because I did not make clear what I actually see as the relationship of Constantine with the Church historically. While that would not fit properly into a comment, in summary Constantine did not have a leadership position in the Church. He did not dictate doctrine or practice. He was not the first Pope (as I've heard before). He did not decide the Council of Nicea (as I've heard before). He had nothing to do with the Dead Sea Scrolls (thank you Glenn Beck). When I said things like "Constantine took the helm and began to use and control the Church" and "the Church is still under the control of Constantine," it's more of a phraseology/terminology issue. Constantine was a politician, and was doing manipulation on his part to keep his empire under control; I do not mean that he was directly dictating matters. Today, the phrase "the Constantinian Church" refers to the structure of the church that conforms to the practices and structure of the church from the Constantinian era. Again, this is not something that I can really dictate clearly enough within a comment. But hopefully I've done away with the idea that I believe Constantine had direct power and an authority position within the Church.
Michael Cornett

Just saw this reply, forgive me for the delayed response. What is your general understanding of how canons are suggested and passed through @ these councils? Your point, figuratively or otherwise, about it being a change overnight leads me to believe you feel there was a heavy influence by a particular person or movement?

From the earliest writings of the Church Fathers, I've seen varied perceptions on ultimate pacifism. What there has been a universal understanding in the undivided Church, however, is on the concept of all killing is murder, and all murder is sin that requires repenting. I read another Canon recently that discusses wartime activity, and participation therein...here's a blurb on it:

"Nonetheless, whatever the case, the canonical situation in the Church remains clear, and there are numerous canons, documents and divine writings that deal with the matter. A typical example is Canon 14 of Hippolytus, which dates to the fourth century:
"A Christian is not to become a soldier. A Christian must not become a soldier, unless he is compelled by a chief bearing the sword. He is not to burden himself with the sin of blood. But if he has shed blood, he is not to partake of the mysteries, unless he is purified by a punishment, tears, and wailing. He is not to come forward deceitfully but in the fear of God."
This is a good example of a basic paradigm: (a) Christians should not become soldiers, as a general principle, just as Christ was not a soldier; yet (b) where necessity demands (i.e. when one is 'compelled by a chief bearing the sword'), it is permissable for him to do so in order to protect that which is under unrighteous attack (in order to, as we petition in the Divine Liturgy, have 'peace for the world, and stability for the holy Churches of God'); but (c) in this service as a soldier a Christian is to avoid the act of killing ('of becoming burdened with the sin of blood') - a position which makes clear that the evil of taking another life is always the ramification of human sin; and that (d) if by necessity a Christian soldier does take another life, he is not to receive the Mysteries (the sacraments) until a suitable period of repentance has been gone through ('unless he is purified by a punishment, tears and wailing'). The final line of the canon makes clear that it is not permissable for such a Christian soldier to 'come forward deceitfully', i.e. to presume to continue to receive the sacraments without confessing the sin of having killed and seeking out the necessary period of repentance."

You cleared your thoughts/views on Constantine well, thanks! I've read other 'scholars' discuss 'history' that is so far from reality, and they use similar terminology, so I was hoping to dispel that in case there might be confusion. A long with many other modern Western Religious terms, most didn't apply to the East or early Christianity.

End of the peaceful Church

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Archives

Book Review Resources

Meta

Latest News Stream