Church History 15 – ‘We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible’

Gulf Fritillary

In fairness to Gonzalez, writing history can’t be easy; the issues and details are enormous.   At times I find myself right on track with him, his sweeping story clearly told and understood.  And then he will condense what seems to be decades of happenings in a single paragraph.  At these times, I am unsure if I should muddle through all those details and tell it now, or wait because he will come back to it.

I suppose to tell a complete story sometimes one must move forward in time then back up.  In the last post we covered a second reaction to royal power being involved with the church under Constantine.  We moved ahead to around 340AD to learn about how the North African church was splintered.  The next segment moves back to 325AD to one of the most important dates in church history.  That is the time that the first statement of faith was formed.

As we are learning from our history, nothing seems easy.  It’s not kumbaya all the time.  Sometimes I wonder if we don’t have flawed expectations about our existence on this earth.  So often we think life should be a bed of roses.  Consider the situation of our first brothers.

‘Why are you angry…sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.  Cain said to his brother Abel, ‘Let us go out to the field.’ And when they were in the field, Cain rose up against his brother Abel and killed him.’ Gen 4:7-8

Abraham Joshua Heschel writes in ‘Moral Grandeur and Spiritual Audacity,’ ‘And the great problem is how to answer, to respond to the human situation….we live in a world full of lies….This is our distinction, to have problems, to face problems. Life is a challenge, not just a satisfaction.’

Every age has problems.  One mans ideas versus another’s.  One man speaks eloquently.  He then convinces his flock that another group of men is wrong on some point or the other.  Follow me, not him.  And so they do and a battle is joined.

This time it was between a bishop and a priest in the so called Arian controversy.   Instead of letting the drama play out over time within the church, Constantine intervened and encouraged a settlement.  What was the big to do?

It was a debate over the nature of God.  The priest, in the view of the bishop, was morphing the nature of God Christians understood, through the lenses of the philosophers. 

Gonzalez:  ‘It was possible that Christians in their eagerness to show the kinship between their faith and classical philosophy would come to the conviction that the best way to speak of God was not that of the prophets and other biblical writers, but rather that of Plato, Plotinus and the rest.  Since those philosophers conceived of perfection as immutable, impassable, and fixed, many Christians came to the conclusion that such was the God of Scripture….

Although the points debated were many, the main issue at stake was whether the Word of God was coeternal with God. The phrase that eventually became the Arian motto, ‘there was when He was not,’ aptly focuses on the point at issue, Alexander held that the Word existed eternally with the Father…Arius claimed that, strictly speaking, the Word was not God, but the first of all creatures…What Arius said, was that, before anything else was made, the Word had been created by God.  Alexander argued that the Word was divine, and therefore could not have been created, but rather was coeternal with the Father.’

The conflict went viral when Alexander ‘condemned Arius’ teachings and removed him from all posts in the church in Alexandria.’

Arius did not like this ruling and began to build his own coalition.  A few bishops came down on Arius’ side.  Eventually, Constantine who wanted the church to be unified for political purposes intervened.

Constantine summoned all the bishops from the east and west for what became known as the ‘Great Assembly.’ 

Gonzalez:  ‘Besides dealing with a number of issues where it was necessary to set standard policies, this great council would resolve the controversy that had broken out in Alexandria.’

The council of Nicea was formed in 325AD consisting of about 300 bishops from all over the Roman Empire. Most of the bishops were from the ‘Greek-speaking’ East but some were from the West.  Gonzalez reminds us that there were a number of bishops in attendance who had been in the line of fire during the years of persecution.  Some even had torture marks on their bodies.

While reputations preceded many of the bishops, they didn’t really know each other.  This was the first time that all the leaders of the various churches were together in one place. 

Gonzalez:  ‘Eusebius of Ceasarea, who was present, describes the scene:

There were gathered the most distinguished ministers of God, from the many churches in Europe, Libya and Asia.  A single house of prayer, as if enlarged by God, sheltered Syrians and Cilicians, Phoenicians and Arabs, delegates from Palestine and from Egypt, Thebans and Libyans, together with those from Mesopotamia….Constantine is the first ruler of all time to have gathered such a garland in the bond of peace, and to have presented it to his Savior as an offering of gratitude for the victories he has won over all his enemies.’

The council of bishops attended to many matters including the process by which the lapsed would be readmitted to the church.  They also set up processes for electing and commissioning bishops and other church officials.  And of course they attended to the matter of the Arian controversy.

There were essentially three camps which the bishops came down on this matter.  First was the small number who supported the Arian view.  The second was Alexander and his camp that set the controversy in motion by expelling Arius in the first place.  Then there was the vast majority of the rest of the bishops who really didn’t think much about the debate before it was brought up for discussion.  But this group really was concerned about the health of the church and thought the schism dangerous.

Alexander presented his case first.  Then representing Arius, Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia presented his views.  The result was overwhelming in support of Alexander.

Gonzalez:  ‘The assertion that the Word or Son was no more than a creature, no matter how high a creature, provoked angry reactions from many of the bishops.  ‘You lie!’ “Blasphemy!’  “Heresy!’  Eusebius was shouted down, and we are told that his speech was snatched from his hand, torn to shreds, and trampled underfoot….They were convinced that they had to reject Arianism in the clearest possible way….It was then decided to agree on a creed that would express the faith of the church in such a way that Arianism was clearly excluded.’

‘We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible.

And in the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of the Father, that is, from the substance of the Father, God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten, not made, of one substance with the Father, through whom all things were made, both in heaven and on earth, who for us humans and for our salvation descended and became incarnate, becoming human, suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended to the heavens, and will come to judge the living and the dead.

And in the Holy Spirit.

But those who say that there was when he was not, and that before being begotten He was not, or that He came from that which is not, or that the Son of God is of a different substance or essence, or that He is created, or mutable, these the catholic church anathematizes.’

With the exception of the Arian party, all the bishops signed off on the Nicene Creed.  There was hope at the time that this agreement on a statement of faith would put an end to the controversy for good.

The majority of bishops with the support of Constantine deposed the heretical bishops.  But we already know that smooth talkers do not sit idly by.  Nicomedia wormed his way back in the good graces of the Emperor.  When Alexander died, Nicomedia has his successor Athanasius deposed.  Peace would not come during this era of theological debate.

Constantine died and was succeeded by three of his sons.  Soon the boys began to fight among each other and the strong one Constantius prevailed with his pro-Arian views.

Gonzalez:  ‘Once again the Nicene leaders had to leave their cities, and imperial pressure was such that eventually even the elderly Hosius of Cordova and Liberius-the bishop of Rome-signed Arian confessions of faith.

It got worse.  Suddenly the strong son Constantius died and his cousin Julian took power.  Julian known as ‘the Apostate’ would seek to take advantage of all unrest among the Christian groups.

Skeptics often point to Constantine’s involvement in the Nicene Council as proof that conspiracy was involved in the formation of the bible people’s beliefs.  They should read this section of history again.   

Sources:

Justo L. Gonzalez from ‘The Story of Christianity, Volume 1, the Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation’

Joshua Abraham Heschel, ‘Moral Grandeur, Spiritual Audacity’

Church History 14 – ‘The underclass lashes out’

Hummingbird Moth

A recent headline in the news read ‘The underclass lashes out,’ in relation to the riots in London.  We might say the same thing about a new schism in the church during around 340AD.  In our previous reading, we learned that some protested against the new power structure of the church by fleeing to the desert.  Others, so called Donatists, sought to make their own church.

I heard a funny story yesterday.  A guy was found all alone on a deserted island.  When the helicopter picked him up, it hovered over the island and the men inside noticed three houses.  The rescue party asked the stranded man about three houses.  The man said, I lived in the first one.  The second one is where I went to church.  They asked him well, what about the third?  He said, that’s where I used to go to church!

The primary reason at the outset for the schism was what to do about people who had lapsed in their faith during previous times of persecution.  This time it was the North African church who felt betrayed by the power brokers in Rome and Constantinople.

In North Africa, the bishop of Carthage position came open.  Two guys wanted the job, Caecilian and his rival Majorinus.  Each called the other names and stated irregularities in the election process.  While the battle for legitimacy was still going on, Majorinus died.  Donatus filled his spot.  Donatus and his followers were called Donatists.

Since there could be only one legitimate bishop, the bishops of other cities got involved.

Gonzalez:  ‘Naturally the rest of the church was profoundly disturbed by this schism in North Africa, for it was possible to acknowledge only one bishop of Carthage.  The bishops of Rome and of several other important cities declared that Caecilian was the true bishop of Carthage, and that Majorinus and Donatus were usurpers.  Constantine, who was greatly interested in keeping together the church so that is could help unify his Empire, followed the lead of these bishops, and sent instructions to his officers in North Africa, that they should acknowledge Caecilian and those in communion with him.’

While the schism may have had its roots concerning what to do with the lapsed, there was much more to this situation.

The Donatists claimed that one of the bishops who ordained Caecilian was himself lapsed.  Therefore, they claimed that all the sacrament and ordinations performed by Caecilian were invalid.

In addition to theology, there were splits among these groups according to class.  The prominent cities like Carthage and Constantinople had power and wealth.  The followers of Donatus were from rural areas.  The battle thus was joined between the haves and the have-nots.  Among the have-nots, a rebel militia was formed.  A group called ‘circumcellions’ became an armed militia in support of the splintered church group.  This group of rebels created terror in and around the North African region for centuries.

Gonzalez:  ‘The circumcellions became in important factor in the schism.  Sometimes the Donatists leaders in the towns tried to disassociate themselves from this radical party.  But at other times, when they needed activist troops, they appealed to the circumcellions.  The time came when many villas and land holdings in secluded places had to be abandoned.  The rich and those who represented the Empire did not dare travel through the countryside without heavy escorts.  More than once, the circumcellions appeared at the very gates of fortified towns.  Credit suffered, and trade came to a standstill.’

Eventually, Roman authorities responded to force with force but the bandits did not easily break.  The bandits would hang around for a long time.  In naming the circumcellions, we have the first Christian example of religious fanaticism. 

This is so interesting to me.  Our bible tells about life in the flesh and compares with the life of the Spirit.

‘Now the works of the flesh are obvious:…strife, jealousy, anger, quarrels, dissensions, factions…and things like these. Gal 5:19-20

‘By contrast, the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control. There is no law against such things.  Gal 5:22

Why has the Christian message so often been diluted by both the haves and the have-nots?  Perhaps it is head versus heart knowledge…living with one foot in the church and the other on main street.  

John Wesley said about us: ‘Come to particulars.  Do you fast now as often as you did then?  Do you rise as early in the morning?  Do you endure cold or heat, wind or rain, as cheerfully as ever?  See one reason among many why so few increase in goods without decreasing in grace-because they no longer deny themselves and take up their daily cross!

Sources:

Justo L. Gonzalez from ‘The Story of Christianity, Volume 1, the Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation’

Joel Green from ‘Reading Scripture as Wesleyans’

Church History 13 – To the Desert, ‘Seeking Beatitude in Solitude’

Eastern Tiger Swallowtail

Constantinople became a hub of energy following the rise of Constantine to power.  Many in the church gravitated to the power source.  Grand churches were built, the liturgy of the church service took on a royal flare, and the masses were flocking to be baptized.  Some, however, did not like the changes they saw in the Christian movement. They fled the city and moved to the desert.

They were ideologues like the band America who sang:

‘After two days in the desert sun
My skin began to turn red
After three days in the desert fun
I was looking at a river bed
And the story it told of a river that flowed
Made me sad to think it was dead 

I've been through the desert on a horse with no name
It felt good to be out of the rain
In the desert you can remember your name
'Cause there ain't no one for to give you no pain
La, la ...’

Gonzalez:  The narrow gate of which Jesus had spoken had become so wide that countless multitudes were hurrying past it-some seemingly after privilege and position, without caring to delve too deeply into the meaning of Christian baptism and life under the cross.’

It seems that we are learning that during every period of peace for the Christian church some group or the other was always tinkering with what it meant to be true to the faith. 

Gonzalez:  ‘When the church joins the powers of the world, when luxury and ostentation take hold of Christian altars, when the whole society is intent on turning the narrow path into a wide avenue, how is one to resist the enormous temptations of the times?

And so there was a group of people who fled to the desert in Egypt.  According to Gonzalez, ‘at the very time when churches in large cites were flooded by thousands demanding baptism, there was a veritable exodus of other thousands who sought beatitude in solitude.’

Early in the fourth century then, we learn of the beginnings of the monastic movement. 

Paul and Anthony are credited with being among the first monks.  Their stories were made famous by the likes of Jerome and Athanasius who wrote about them.

While some lived in total seclusion, eventually small desert communities of monks began to form.   Like the Pachomian community described below:

Gonzalez:  ‘The daily life of a Pachomian monk included both work and devotion…For the devotional life, Paul’s injunction to ‘pray without ceasing’ was the model.  Thus, while the bankers kneaded the bread, or the cobblers made shoes, all sang psalms, recited passages of Scripture, prayed either aloud or in silence, meditated on a biblical text, and so forth.’  

And of what they thought while in the desert:  Thomas Merton in The Wisdom of the Desert’ wrote ‘St Anthony is adduced for what is the basic principle of desert life:  that God is the authority and that apart from His manifest will there are few or no principles: “Therefore, whatever you see your soul desire according to God, to that thing, and you shall keep your heart safe.”

The true nature of the exodus to the desert was the ‘seeking.’  Seeking the will of God and seeking ‘salvation.’

Merton:  ‘Those who came to the desert seeking ‘salvation’ asked the elders for a ‘word’ that would help them find it.’

Merton produced a collection of sayings in his book that produced the essence of monastic life which according to him are:  faith, humility, charity, meekness, discretion, self-denial.  But not the least of the qualities of the ‘words of salvation’ is there common sense.’

Merton goes on to say that of his collection of sayings, ‘most of the characters represented in the sayings and stories are of men who are ‘on the way’ to purity of heart rather than men who have fully arrived….These latter were much more inclined to accept the common lot of man who has to struggle all his life to overcome himself.’

There is great value in reflecting on this period of history.  This can be illustrated by a pithy comment from one of my facebook friends this week.  She wrote jokingly about conflict in her home over what to watch on TV.  She wanted to watch the financial news and obsess over the stock market decline.  Her husband wanted to watch one of the ‘World’s Dumbest’ shows.

We can enter fully into the news cycle of the day and be totally consumed by it or are we can disengage completely and be ruled by the forces that be.

Our desert fathers held up an ideal which seen from afar became a beacon of light.  The desert fathers themselves did not publish writings.  It was others, who escaping the noise of the city, came out to the desert and wrote down what they said.

A few sayings from ‘The Wisdom of the Desert:’

‘A Brother asked one of the elders:  How does fear of the Lord get into a man?  And the elder said:  If a man has humility and poverty, and judge not another that is how fear of the Lord gets into him.’

‘An Elder saw a certain one laughing and said to him:  In the presence of the Lord of heaven and earth we must answer for our whole life; and you can laugh?’

‘Abbot Ammonas said that he had spent fourteen years in Scete praying to God day and night to be delivered from anger.’

‘A certain brother inquired of Abbot Pastor, saying:  ‘What shall I do?  I lose my nerve when I am sitting alone at prayer in my cell?  The elder said to him: Despise no one, condemn no one, rebuke on one, God will give you peace and your meditation will be undisturbed.’

The monastic ideal came to be remembered because of the life and wisdom of the Brothers.  A good example to cite is that  of Martin of Tours.  http://www.ewtn.com/library/mary/martin.htm

Martin was famous for cutting his cape in half and giving it to a beggar.  He is also said to have had visions from Christ;

‘Inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.’

Gonzalez:  This episode became so well known, there ever since Martin is usually represented in the act of sharing his cape with the beggar.  This is also the origin of the word ‘chapel’-for centuries later, in a small church, there was a piece of cloth reputed to be a portion of Martin’s cape.  From that piece of cape-capella-the little church came to be called a ‘chapel, ‘and those who served in it, ‘chaplains.’

As his fame grew, Martin reluctantly took a position of Bishop moving back to the city.  But Martin did not engage in all the pomp and privilege.

Gonzalez:  ‘Next to the cathedral, he built a small cell where he devoted all his free time to the monastic life….When Martin died, many were convinced that he was a saint.  His fame and example led many to the conviction that a true bishop ought to be like him.’

‘The ocean is a desert with it's life underground
And a perfect disguise above
Under the cities lies a heart made of ground
But the humans will give no love

You see I've been through the desert on a horse with no name
It felt good to be out of the rain
In the desert you can remember your name
'Cause there ain't no one for to give you no pain
La, la ...’

Sources:

Justo L. Gonzalez from ‘The Story of Christianity, Volume 1, the Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation’

Thomas Merton from ‘The Wisdom of the Desert

Church History 12 – Eusebius of Caesarea (263AD – 339AD)

Butterfly Bush

The big idea this week is how the church began to change after Constantine came to power.  Surviving documents seem to indicate that the church thought more highly than it ought of Constantine.   Below is an excerpt from Eusebius of Caesarea’s ‘Church History:'

‘But Constantine, the mightiest victor, adorned with every virtue of piety, together with his son Crispus, a most God-beloved prince, and in all respects like his father, recovered the East which belonged to them; and they formed one united Roman empire as of old, bringing under their peaceful sway the whole world from the rising of the sun to the opposite quarter, both north and south, even to the extremities of the declining day.  All fear therefore of those who had formerly afflicted them was taken away from men, and they celebrated splendid and festive days. Everything was filled with light, and those who before were downcast beheld each other with smiling faces and beaming eyes. With dances and hymns, in city and country, they glorified first of all God the universal King, because they had been thus taught, and then the pious emperor with his God-beloved children.’

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.toc.html

It was Eusebius and his teachers who wrote down the history of the early church.

Gonzalez:  ‘Without it, a great deal of the story that we have been telling would have been lost.  It was Eusebius who collected, organized, and published practically all that is now known of many persons and episodes in the life of the early church.’

But it is not so simple to judge Eusebius.  Consider the quote above from his ‘Church History.’  The lens with which he viewed the world was scarred.  Persecutions and church burnings were the norm heretofore.  When Constantine came to power Eusebius’ worldview changed.

Gonzalez:  ‘From the point of view of Eusebius and his surviving companions, what was taking place was a direct intervention by God, something similar to the events of the Exodus…Constantine, and he alone, remained as God’s chosen instrument.’

I am reminded of how it must have felt for many black people in this country when Barrack Obama was elected President of the United States.   I sat next to a beautiful young black woman on a flight from somewhere near the end of the campaign.  While I did not support Obama’s political views, I was struck by how meaningful his election would be to this woman. 

From time to time, I have caught glimpses of what is must be like to be black in this country.  While things are much better than the 1960’s racism still exists.  I have seen black men pulled over by the police who in my view did not deserve to be pulled over.

 All this to say, that the lens with which many people view Barrack Obama is shaped by how they have been treated in history is the same in my view as how Eusebius viewed Constantine’s rise to power.

Gonzalez goes on to say that since Eusebius viewed Constantine as an instrument of God, ‘he did not hesitate to support the emperor.’

In his thinking and writing, Eusebius certainly had an agenda.  He did not simply seek to state the facts of history. 

Gonzalez:  ‘What Eusebius then did was to bring together these various ideas, showing them at working in the verifiable facts of the history of both the church and the Empire.  This history that thus resulted was no mere collection of data of antiquarian interest, but rather a further demonstration of the truth of Christianity, which is the culmination of human history.’

Gonzalez:  ‘He seems to have been aware of some of Constantine’s shortcomings, especially his irascible and sometimes even bloodthirsty temperament.  But in order not to weaken his argument, Eusebius simply remains silent about such things.’

And so we are reminded of these things to see how according to Gonzalez ‘Christian theology was being shaped by the new circumstances, even to the point of abandoning some of its traditional themes.’

Gonzalez gives three examples to show this line of thinking.

‘First of all, it is clear that, in the New Testament…it was affirmed that the Gospel was first of all good news to the poor, and that the rich had particular difficulty in hearing it and receiving it….But now beginning with Constantine, riches and pomp came to be seen as signs of divine favor.

Eusebius described with great joy and pride the ornate churches that were being built.  But the net result of those buildings, and of the liturgy that evolved to fit them, was the development of a clerical aristocracy.

Finally, the scheme of history that Eusebius  developed led him to set aside the fundamental theme of early Christian preaching:  the coming of the Kingdom of God…there was a tendency to set aside or to postpone the hope of the early church, that its Lord would return in the clouds to establish a Kingdom of peace and justice.’

There was a giddy feeling among Christians during the early years of Constantine’s rule.  Gonzalez says, ‘Eusebius is not the creator of what we have called ‘official theology,’ but rather the mouthpiece of the thousands of Christians, who like him, were overawed by God’s mercy in finally delivering the church from persecution.’

Source:  Justo L. Gonzalez from ‘The Story of Christianity, Volume 1, the Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation’

Church History 11 – 'Opportunity and Danger'

Purple Cone Flower

If we recall, early converts to Christianity were rigorously prepared sometimes taking three years of study before being allowed full participation in communion.  Moreover, a life application test was applied.  In other words, one was tested to see if one acted like a Christian when one wasn't in church.   These same standards didn’t apply to Constantine. 

After his vision at Milvian Bridge, where he said he believed the Christian God spoke to him, Constantine didn’t receive the direct tutelage ordinary converts would have gotten.  He sort of played both ends against the middle.

On the one hand, he brought images of gods into the new capitol of Constantinople.  He did this to appease the old guard.  Perhaps, even like us, he had a hard time letting go of his own image of God.  On the other hand, he clearly had a hand in the development of the church.

Gonzalez:  ‘Constantine reserved the right to determine his own religious practices and even to intervene in the life of the church, for he considered himself ‘bishop of bishops.’  Repeatedly, even after his conversion, he took part in pagan rites in which no Christian would participate, and the bishops raised no voice of condemnation….The reason for this was not only that the emperor was both powerful and irascible, but also that, in spite of his policies favoring Christianity, and his repeated confession of the power of Christ, he was not technically a Christian, for he had not been baptized.  In fact, it was only on his deathbed that he was baptized.’

‘Such a person could receive the advice and even the support of the church, but not its direction.’

Does this sound like us in many ways?  Is this the point in history that the purity of the early church was lost forever?

To move forward with our story, Gonzalez states that Constantine though ‘cannot be seen as a mere opportunist who declared himself in favor of Christianity in order to court the support of Christians.’

Christians in fact had nothing to offer Constantine in terms of helping him.  We know that the early Christians subsisted predominately from the bottom of the economic totem pole.  They didn't hold high government positions and didn't have military leaders among them.

Gonzalez:  ‘The truth is probably that Constantine was a sincere believer in the power of Christ.  But this does not mean that he understood that power in the same way in which it had been experienced by those Christians who had died for it.  For him, the Christian God was a very powerful being who would support him as long as he favored the faithful.  Therefore,, when Constantine enacted laws in favor of Christianity, and when he had churches built, what he sought was not the goodwill of Christians, but rather the goodwill of their God.’

Constantine was not an immediate convert but it does appear he began to leave behind the pagan ways as he became more familiar with Christian ways.  Still he presided over festivals and high days associated with the pagan gods for some time.

Even though he allowed the worship of pagan gods to continue, Constantine had an enormous impact on Christianity.  The most obvious impact was the cessation of persecution.  But not all of the imperial support was for the betterment of the faith.  During this early period of favor, many Christians sought to capitalize on the idea that God was on the side of Constantinople now.  A church state if you will.

Gonzalez:  ‘Others took the opposite tack.  For them, the fact that the emperors declared themselves Christians, and that for this reason people were flocking to the church, was not a blessing, but rather a great apostasy.  Some who tended to look at matters under this light, but did not wish to break communion with the rest of the church, withdrew to the desert, there to lead a life of meditation and asceticism.’

Still, there were a number of Christians who tried to remain mainstream faithful.  They did not fall hook, line and sinker for all things imperial.  Nor did they feel it necessary to ditch the church and head to the desert.  These folks had to stay and do battle with ideas.  It seems that every time in history when there was relative peace for Christians, some group or another came along to distort the original teachings.  This period was no different.  This time it was Arianism.  Arianism was essentially false doctrine about the Trinity…more on this to follow in latter posts.

Another big change for the church was that big churches began to be built.  Thus the nature of the worship service began to change.

Gonzalez: ‘Christian worship began to be influenced by imperial protocol.  Incense, which was used as a sign of respect for the emperor, began appearing in Christian churches.  Officiating ministers, who until then had worm everyday clothes, began dressing in more luxurious garments….the custom was also introduced of beginning services with a procession.  Choirs were developed…the congregation came to have a less active role in worship.’

Gonzalez summarizes this time for Christian leaders as a time of opportunity and a time of danger.  ‘Since both danger and opportunity were great, these leaders faced a difficult task.  Perhaps not all their decisions and attitudes were correct; but in any case, this was an age of giants who would shape the church for centuries to come.’

Source:  Justo L. Gonzalez from ‘The Story of Christianity, Volume 1, the Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation’

Church History 10 – Constantine Bests His Rival

Canna and Day Lilly

‘Ambition often puts Men upon doing the meanest offices; so climbing is performed in the same position with creeping.’ A. C. Benson

Constantine didn’t just win the battle at Milvian Bridge and was suddenly crowned as sole emperor over the Roman Empire.  But with the battle won, he controlled the west.  Eventually, Licinius gained sole control in the east.  Game on.   Constantine made some moves.

Gonzalez:  ‘Constantine offered his half-sister Constance in marriage to Licinius, and he may also have made a secret agreement with his future brother-in-law.  This would seem to cover his flank….The Empire was then divided between Licinius, who ruled over the entire area east of Italy, including Egypt, and Constantine, who controlled Italy as well as Western Europe and North Africa.  Since the two emperors were related by marriage, there was hope that the civil wars had come to an end.  But the truth was that both Licinius and Constantine sought to rule the whole Empire, which, in spire of its vastness, was too small for both of them.  For awhile, each of the two rivals devoted himself to consolidate his power and to prepare for the inevitable conflict.’

Constantine and Licinius barbed back and forth for many years.  In 314AD, Constantine won a big battle against Licinius garnering more territory.  The main reason the two guys didn’t get along was ambition according to Gonzalez.  Apparently, Constantine had more ambition and more savvy because in 322AD he finally defeated Licinius and became the sole Roman Emperor.

I am struck by some similarities between the lives of Constantine and King Solomon of the Hebrew Scriptures.  Once Solomon was named King, he had his rival Adonijah killed.  It is conspicuous that even after Constantine had defeated Licinius in battle and his sister Constance pleaded for her husband’s life, Licinius was murdered.

‘Ambition breaks the ties of blood, and forgets the obligations of gratitude.’ Sallust

Constantine at once went on a building spree like King Solomon.  Constantine decided to make a new capitol of the Roman Empire. 

Gonzalez:  ‘Now, as absolute master of the Empire, he set out on a bold course; he would build a ‘New Rome’ an impregnable and monumental city, which would be called Constantinople- that is, ‘city of Constantine.’

Constantine diverted resources from everywhere in the empire to build the ‘New Rome.’

‘King Solomon conscripted forced labor out of all Israel...at the king’s command; they quarried out great, costly stones in order to lay the foundation of the house with dressed stones.’  1 Kings 5:13, 17

Gonzalez: ‘Years later, Jerome would say that Constantinople was dressed in the nakedness of the rest of the Empire.  A number of statues of pagan gods were taken from their ancient temples and placed in such public places as the hippodrome, the public baths, or the squares.

On of the most ornate items was a statue chiseled by Phidias that stood over 125 tall.  Originally this statue was of Apollo but it was reconfigured so that the head was now in Constantine’s likeness.

‘In the fourth year the foundation of the house of the Lord was laid…He was seven years in building it….Solomon was building his own house thirteen years.   1 Kings 6:37 – 7:1

For when Solomon was old, his wives turned his heart after other gods.’ 1 Kings 11:4

Not long after Constantine settled on the ‘New Rome’ the old one was sacked by barbarians.  The ‘New Rome’ and territories under Constantine became known as the Byzantine Empire and was a world power broker for 1000 years.

Source:  Justo L. Gonzalez from ‘The Story of Christianity, Volume 1, the Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation’

Church History 9 - Power sharing, then the grab

Mimosa Tree

Rome was in trouble late in the 3^rd century.  Civil wars were breaking out throughout the empire.  The Emperor Diocletian decided to deploy a power sharing tactic.  Instead of one big guy in charge, he installed two with the title of Augustus and two underlings with the title of Caesar.  The idea was much like the new coach in waiting policy that is being used in college football today.  (Jumbo Fisher knew he would get the top Florida State job when Bobby Bowden retired.) The empire was divided this way.

Gonzalez:  ‘Diocletian himself in the East, and Maximian in the West.  Under each of them were a junior emperor…Galerius under Diocletian, and Constantius Chlorus under Maximian.’

This worked well for a little while and Christians had a peaceful existence.  But because there were constant battles being fought in some quarter of the empire to keep out the Barbarians and the Persians, the empire needed a steady supply of soldiers.  Many Christians didn’t feel obliged to serve in the emperor’s army.  Galerius convinced Diocletian to put a new edict in place to remove Christians from any responsible position in the government.  This set in motion another period of trouble for our old brothers and sisters.  Churches and sacred writings were burned.  Similar to the time when Nero was in power, a great fire broke out in the imperial palace and Christians were blamed again. 

‘Gonzalez:  ‘Thus was unleashed the most cruel of all the persecutions that the ancient church had to endure. Following the example of Decius, efforts were made to encourage Christians to abandon their faith.  Accustomed as there were to the relative ease of several decades, many Christians succumbed.  The rest were tortured with refined cruelty, and eventually killed in a variety of ways.’

Around 304AD, Diocletian and Maximian lost power.  The underlings, Galerius and Constantius Chlorus took charge.  They promoted two ‘inept creatures’ to become Caesars below them.

Soon the power sharing tactic began to weaken.  I saw a story in the news today that illustrates why the best laid plans don’t always go according to plan. 

‘West Virginia football coach Bill Stewart resigned and coach-in-waiting Dana Holgorsen will take over, the school confirmed Friday.

The parting ends a week-long saga that saw Stewart investigated for trying to undermine coach-in-waiting Dana Holgorsen.’  USA Today

The emperors began to undermine one another.  In what would be monumental for the future of Christianity, the son of Constantius Chlorus, Constantine began to attract a following.  With civil wars all over the empire, Constantine began to plotting to do battle against his foes.

Gonzalez:  ‘Constantine gathered his armies in Gaul, crossed the Alps and marched on Rome….According to two Christian chroniclers who knew Constantine, on the eve of the battle he had a revelation.  One of the sources, Lactantius, says that it was in a dream that Constantine received the command to place a Christian symbol on the shields of his soldiers.  The other chronicler, Eusebius, says that the vision appeared in the sky, with the words, ‘in this you shall conquer.’

Many think that Constantine had an instant conversion to Christianity.  But the evidence is that Constantine still worshipped the gods for some time after this.  His faith came like ours, over time.

Constantine facilitated the ‘Edict of Milan in 313 AD which put an end to Christian persecution in the Roman Empire.   As we will learn, after Constantine came to power, Christians would have access to power for the first time in its history.

Gonzalez:  ‘Whether this was in truth a victory, or the beginning of new and perhaps greater difficulties, will be the theme of many of the chapters to follow…What would happen when those who called themselves servants of a carpenter, and whose great heroes were fisherfolk, slaves, and criminals condemned to death by the state, suddenly saw themselves surrounded by imperial pomp and power?  Would they remain firm in their faith?  Or would it be that those who had stood before tortures and before beasts would give way to the temptation of an easy life and of social prestige?

‘Do not pray for easy lives. Pray to be stronger men.’ John F. Kennedy

Source:  Justo L. Gonzalez from ‘The Story of Christianity, Volume 1, the Early Church to the Dawn of the Reformation’