Part 1: The Rise and Fall of Christendom

B. The Christendom Shift

Two opposite assessments have been made of what happened in the fourth century:

• That this was a God-given opportunity which the church rightly seized and which ensured the triumph of the church and of Christianity in Europe;
  
  
• That this was a disaster that perverted the church, compromised its calling and hindered its mission, achieving through infiltration what 300 years of persecution had failed to achieve. That this was not the triumph of the church over the empire but the triumph of the empire over the church.

Christendom meant:

• The adoption of Christianity as the official religion of city, state or empire;
  
  
• The assumption that all citizens (except for the Jews) were Christian by birth;
  
  
• The development of a 'sacral society', where there was no effective distinction between sacred and secular, where religion and politics were inter-twined;
  
  
• The definition of 'orthodoxy' as the common belief, determined by socially powerful clerics supported by the state;
  
  
• The imposition of a supposedly 'Christian morality' on the entire population (although normally Old Testament moral standards were applied);
  
  
• A political and religious division of the world into 'Christendom' and 'heathendom';
  
  
• The defence of Christianity by legal sanctions to restrain heresy, immorality and schism, and by warfare to protect or extend Christendom;
  
  
• A hierarchical ecclesiastical system, based on a diocesan and parish arrangement, which was analogous to the state hierarchy and was buttressed by state support;
  
  
• A generic distinction between clergy and laity, and the relegation of the laity to a largely passive role;
  
  
• Obligatory church attendance, with penalties for non-compliance;
  
  
• The practice of infant baptism as the symbol of obligatory incorporation into this Christian society;
  
  
• The imposition of obligatory tithes to fund this system.

The basis of the Constantinian system was a close partnership between the church and the state. The form of this partnership might vary, with either partner dominant, or with a balance of power existing between them. There are examples from the fourth century onwards both of emperors presiding over church councils and of emperors doing penance imposed by bishops. Throughout the medieval period, power struggles between popes and emperors resulted in one or other holding sway for a time. But the Christendom system assumed the church was associated with the Christian status quo and had vested interests in maintaining it. The church provided religious legitimation for state activities; the state provided secular force to back up ecclesiastical decisions.

Supporters of Christendom have argued that this system enabled the lordship of Christ to be exercised over every aspect of society and that it demonstrated the triumph of the gospel. Enthusiastic church leaders spoke of the fulfilment of the Great Commission and of the arrival of the millennium. This was the basis of the early church historian, Eusebius' approval of Constantine, whose biography he wrote.

More recently, Abraham Kuyper has expressed similar approval of this development:

'When the first contest eventuated in this that the emperor bowed to Jesus, then... the kingship of Christ began to be triumphant in society...The kingship of Christ from this time on stood as a direction-giving power above the imperial power, which, in order to strengthen its influence, tried for an ever-increasingly close integration with the kingship of Jesus...When in the fourth century persecution ceased and the imperial power evinced a readiness to accommodate itself to Jesus, the basic victory became apparent...This principial victory continued on during the entire course of the long period known as the Middle Ages'.

But opponents of Christendom have considered that this 'victory' was achieved at the expense of surrendering on many important issues and have judged that, in fact, Christianity had been conquered and domesticated. Rather than society being sanctified, the church had been secularised. They have pointed out that it is not easy to fit into the Constantinian framework certain key elements of the Christianity of the New Testament and the first three centuries. Constantinian thinking seems to have no place for elements of a New Testament vision such as:

• Believers' churches comprised only of voluntary members;
  
  
• Believers' baptism as the means of incorporation into the church;
  
  
• A clear distinction between 'church' and 'world';
  
  
• Evangelism and mission (except through military conquest of or missions to 'heathen' nations);
  
  
• The supranational vision of the new Christian 'nation';
  
  
• Faith in Christ as the exercise of choice in a pluralistic environment where other choices are possible without penalty.

Other elements of New Testament Christianity appear to be redefined within Christendom:

• 'Church' is defined territorially and membership in it is compulsory; the voluntary communities called 'churches' in the New Testament are now called 'sects';
  
  
• A preoccupation with the immortality of the soul replaces the expectation of the kingdom of God, and the concept of the kingdom of God is either reduced to a purely historical entity, coterminous with the state church, or relegated to a supra-historical or future realm;
  
  
• The church abandons its prophetic role in society in favour of a role that is primarily priestly, providing spiritual support for groups and individuals and sanctifying social occasions and state policies;
  
  
• Discipleship is interpreted in terms of good citizenship, rather than commitment to the ways of the kingdom of God;
  
  
• The church becomes primarily concerned about social order rather than social justice;
  
  
• Persecution is imposed by those claiming to be Christians rather than upon them.

Some contemporary writers have expressed agreement with the negative view of Christendom held by generations of dissidents. Jürgen Moltmann, for example, wrote that for this apparent victory:

'The church had to pay a high price: it had to take over the role of the political religion... Now the church was there for everyone. Its mission reached everywhere. But as what? It reached everyone only as a component part of the political order - as the state religion of the political government.'

Vinoth Ramachandra argues:

'A movement that proclaimed grace and practised justice, a faith that had at its centre a crucified man as the hope of human and cosmic transformation, could not have been converted to a religious civilization like any other without serious damage to its very essence.'

Others have suggested that the church had no option in the fourth century but to accept imperial endorsement, and that Christendom, despite its excesses, was a providential means of christianising culture and advancing God's kingdom. Lesslie Newbigin has concluded:

'How else, at that moment of history, could the Church have expressed its faithfulness to the gospel which is a message about the universal reign of God? It is hard to see what other possibility there was at that moment. The experiment of a Christian political order had to be made.'

Next - The Fall of Christendom >>