EARLY CHRISTIANITY AND THE STATE.
During this election cycle, it is an interesting exercise to think about how the attitude towards the state defined as “Christian” is always in flux. Since the rise of Christianity there have almost always been multiple views of government and how it relates to the Church going on at once. Fringe vantage points and oddities tend to make a lot of noise; ignorance and outspokenness are dance partners.
3 BASIC IDEAS ABOUT CHURCH AND STATE.
The three basic views of ancient Christians thinking about state can be traced back to Jewish attitudes towards an aggressive Roman empire.
HERE GOES:
1) On one hand, Philo of Alexandria was a great admirer of the Roman empire and sought to tie together Hellenistic virtue and Jewish scripture.
2) On the other, the apostle Paul and his younger Jewish contemporary, Rabbi Hananiah, both believed the empire was a God given institution, there to both protect and discipline humanity.
3) The third attitude was much more revolutionary and hostile… we might say, apocalyptic. It is the apocalyptic attitude can be found in Daniel, the Jewish passages of the Sybbalines, in the apocalypses of Ezra and Baruch.
But here’s the thing— apocalyptic expectation is also the New Testament. Because the Bible has multiple authors that disagree all the time, the author of a book like Revelation is extremely antagonistic to Rome and carries the Jewish revolutionary spirit forward.
CHRISTIAN ATTITUDES TOWARDS EMPIRE.
Christian attitudes towards the Roman empire during the first three centuries CE could ALL be found in the Christian Bible (Old and New Testament).
The expectation of the return of Jesus and the establishing of God’s kingdom on earth was hard to square with the Roman empire. Over time the notion of an Age of the Church set in, the biblical interpreters got to work in making sense of it all… :D By referring to prophecies like Daniel 2.31-45; 7.7, and Revelation 13.11f, it was possible to see the Roman empire as holding god’s place and keeping the peace until the eschaton. So that’s what some Christian writers did to varying degrees.
On the other hand, following Paul on a text like 2 Thessalonians 2.7, it was also possible to think about Rome as a ‘postponement of the end’— the empire stops or delays the eschatological appearance of the ‘lawless man whom the Lord Jesus will exterminate with his mouth’s breath… (you know…says the church lady…) Satan’ (2 Thessalonians 2.8 ff.). And so Rome “postpones” this final defeat of team evil by maintaining peace and justice on earth, or at least giving it a good go (Rom 13.3,4; 1 Pet 2.13-17; 1 Tim 2.1f). So in this view of the state, we can all play nice.
Notice we got to both places from the Bible itself!
With this understanding of Rome, there was not just a permanent rivalry in the mindset of Christians, but there were also common interests and goals between ‘Romans’ and ‘Christians.’ In fact the goal of apologetic writers like Tertullian or Justin was often to point out mutual interest in the face of persecution as they worked for toleration.
A WHOS WHO OF THE END OR NOT SO END OF THE WORLD…
Justin martyr.
Justin was the first Greek speaker who took up writing an apology, insofar as we know. He died around 165 CE in Rome, but was born in Samaria. Justin holds the view that Christians were ‘truly pious and philosophers,’ and leverages a sort of Platonic philosophy, to show himself as a philosopher and a Christian. He argues in his apology that Christians are loyal to the emperor and pray for the benefit of the polity.
Melito of Sardis
Melito lived in Asia Minor. He wrote an apology, or defense of Christianity, in c. 172 CE. Melito argues that when Augustus reigned (27BCE-14CE), a great time was had by all! He argues the empire and the church are ‘foster-sisters’ born in the same timing and nursed by the lady. The overlap in time of Augustus and Jesus Christ is God intended for Melito. Pax Romana brought about by Augustus was a product of divine command in order to pave the way for the Christian peace (pax Christi). Only the biggest jerk emperors, Nero and Domitian, went after Christians according to Melito.
The Author of Revelation
Christianity often has an apocalyptic string just below the surface, and it is strongly expected the renewal of heaven and earth in the Age to Come in biblical texts like Revelation 21.1-5. Pulling forward texts like Isaiah 31.9-32.1; 54.11-14; 65.18-22, some Christians came up with a thousand year “millenarian rule” of ‘those who had not worshiped the beast and his image.’ This stripe of Christianity believed the true church will reign with Christ on earth (think of texts like Revelation 20.4,6,7) after Satan (who becomes the Antichrist in this text—shazam!!) will have come and reigned and all the peoples outside the Church who bowed down to him will have been annihilated.
We now have everything we need for a simply terrible 10 part novel series which assumes this is literally coming true while simultaneously being completely unaware that this is the minority and craziest early Christian vantage point— cheers Text and Rockers, pass the popcorn. :D
Irenaeus.
Irenaeus, who was born in Asia Minor before 150 CE, did much to pull forward the apocalyptic view as literal and to snuff out ‘heresies,’ or opinions which were not his own (remember kiddos there were no Church councils for a while…). He worked as a bishop until his death in 200 CE as a presbyter in southern Gaul (Lyons, Lugdunhum). Irenaeus wrote a large polemic against gnostic heresy which very much sees opposition between the world and the Church. He gets the angriest at those who think the millennium described in Revelation is allegorical or metaphorical, and doubles down hard on it being literal and happening kicking off like next Thursday. It’s been a couple thousand years, so I think we are safe. Wink. Anyway, for Irenaeus, any stability brought about by Rome is for the spread of the gospel before the destruction of the world. He’s a lot like Paul in this regard.
Hippolytus.
Hippolytus was a presbyter in Rome who died in exile in Sardinia under Maximinus Thrax. He was born sometime before 170, but the dating is a little tricky. Hippolytus is in cahoots with Irenaeus’ ideology, and kind of is divided on Rome. For him, ‘Rome’ is indeed the power holding evil back from 2 Thessalonians 2.6-7, but it on the other hand, prefigures Satanic regime which will finally be destroyed. It’s a real have your cake and eat it too if the cake tasted awful scenario. Get it? So for him, Rome expanded under Satan’s bidding, to try to imitate the Christian church. Sounds like a great Christopher Walken movie doesn’t it? Big picture though— Hippolytus goes the entirely opposite way from Melito of Sardis.
Tertullian.
Every dog I’ve ever had I wanted to name Tertullian. Sarah has always vetoed it. But she is a great wife and dog mom. Let’s keep moving. So Tertullian lived in North Africa (160-220ish). He was a brilliant Latin writer, with a thoroughly Roman rhetorical style. So, Tertullian agrees with the full blown expectation of apocalypse. While Christians are in no way excited for the world’s end and the eternal Halloween that is coming, they pray for the emperors and the stability and power of the Roman empires. Tertullian takes the road less traveled here—instead of creating a lot of common interest between ‘Romans’ and ‘Christians’, he denies the Roman res publica matters at all to Christians, because they are all citizens of the universe (mundus). I like this cat. Always have. He attacks the paganism and its idolatry for the danger the Roman Empire finds herself in and says if anything Christians possess the emperor more than pagans because the Christian god actually puts kings upon thrones. Chutzpah… I know right?
Origen
The famous student of Clement took a more middle of the road, calm view. He is an Alexandrian, a philosopher, and does not think highly of millenarianism. Basically because he thinks. For Origen, the world will end precisely when it means to… like a wizard arrives. Whenever all people have received the punishment for the full measure of their sin, punishment will end. And only God knows when that will be. Origen believed Christ will lead the whole creation to one and only end which will also subject enemies, but he is a much more cosmopolitan, universal thinker. Origen believe Christians should work alongside imperial efforts which were good for God’s world, and oppose what was evil.
Lactanius.
Origen throws in as a hypothetical in Against Celcus, that Rome could actually come to believe in Jesus. Against all odds it happened under Constantine. And it is at this point we turn the corner to being pro-empire in the church. Lactanius actually changed throughout his writing career from the view that Christians ought to pray to intercede for wicked emperors, to praising emperors as God’s enthroned agents and praying long live the empire.
Crazy I know— is it though? I mean we can find this shift and this viewpoint in the United States, right now.
How many modern-day Christians jump on board with politicians just because they imply a Bible verse or Christian rhetoric? This is the ancient version of that ideology, and it has resurfaced in some pretty unique ways as of late.
Eusebius.
Eusebius of Caesarea agrees with Lactantius, but in writing his Ecclesiastical History, did way more to promote his view and solidify it in Christendom. It was just as much Eusebius as Constantine who made the empire “Christian”. For Eusebius, Constantine’s victory was a miraculous answer to prayer. Like Melito or Sardis, Eusebius thinks there is a perfect unity between monarchy and monotheism (One emperor, One God), especially when a Christian is on the throne.
And so Eusebius became the biggest fan of the empire and emperor, and the church seems to follow suit at this point. Eusebius describes the reign of Constantine and his dynasty as the predicted reign of peace. This may be the first occurrence of a dangerous idea we see in politics today, that one candidate or throne sitter or whatever you wanna call it, is God’s man and so can do no wrong. It’s not that a political figure cannot be a Christian or even be devout— it’s that this notion can be badly manipulated by simply claiming oneself Christian and acting without any of the virtues idealized by the faith tradition.
5 BIG IDEAS FOR MODERNS.
Okay so here are some takeaways for moderns:
There is more than one view of government and how to relate to said government called “Christian.” I tried to show this really briefly from antiquity; it is obvious in modernity.
These conceptions can vary wildly. One prefessing Christian argues it is the most beautiful statement of faith for Trump to hold up a Bible in front of a church. To another this is a sham, a lie, dangerous, and sullies everything Jesus represents. The deeper issue isn’t actually the President— even though he is a totally polarizing figure (that’s being more than generous)— the deeper issue is the conception someone has on Church and State.
All the different opinions we see today have snowballed from the early Church. Either the government is good and holds back evil, or the government is said evil, or the government itself is somehow the gift of God in the combination of Heaven and Earth that is supposed to be a “Christian nation.” I’m not bitter just sarcastic.
All of these vantage points, at least in my view, miss the great gift of the pagans called Democracy (I’m saying this as a Christian so calm down) , government of the people. Although America is more akin to a Roman republic, the fact that we vote on leadership, have peaceful transfer of power (assuming Trump follows that American ideal), and no one kills you for your belief in one naming of divinity over another… all these things mean the government is not Caesar, and we do not live in an ancient empire.
There is simply so much that is right and possible in a democratic country where social mobility, albeit imperfect and with constant threat of injustice, that we need to remember that you can be a Christian, you can even expect some kind of Halloween apocalypse if you want, but you really cannot draw correlation between the Roman Empire and the United States government. If anything, corporations act more empirical…but that is for another day.
Love ya Text and Rockers— I’m ready to throw season three down like a storm god. Boom boom boom.
Swift-footed Markilles