Rome and the Early Church

The division of Rome and the fall of the western half of the Roman Empire had vast political, economic, and social consequences, but it also contributed to religious divisions in the early church. Arguments between church leaders over doctrinal and political issues arose in the midst and at least partially as the result of the division of the Roman state and finally came to a head in the events now known as the “Great Schism” which split the Christian church in half between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. In the first century AD, a new religion, based on the life and teachings of Jesus, was beginning to spread throughout the Roman Empire. Jesus himself was born sometime around the year 4 BC, before his earliest enemy, the Roman governor Herod, died; and was crucified sometime between 29 and 33 AD and his followers lived under persecution and threat of execution for hundreds of years following the death and claimed resurrection of their leader. Rome had by and large employed a policy of tolerance toward the native religious groups in the areas it conquered but their reaction to Judaism and later, Christianity, was nervous at best, and violent at worst. There are many things about the message of Christianity in particular that Rome no doubt saw as alien and problematic. Rome was highly nationalistic and patriotic in its culture and its religious tradition was one of a pantheon of, flawed, human-like gods which did not contradict the state or criticize the emperor. Christianity on the other hand was very adamant that the only true ruler in the end, was God himself, and that human rulers were merely allowed to rule part of God’s domain. Just like the provincial governors who ruled areas within the empire were supposed to obey the emperor, any human ruler controlled a mere portion of creation and God could, and in the scriptures did, depose and/or humiliate any king or ruler who fell too far out of line. “Now the word of the Lord came to Samuel saying: “I deeply regret I set up Saul to rein as king for he has turned his back from following Me and has not kept my words.” (1 Kingdoms 15:10-11 NKJV). The Roman Emperors had this tradition of claiming divinity, whether they believed it themselves or not, it was an important political move on their part because no one would question the right of a divine being to rule. Christianity threatened to make the people of Rome reject that and for the emperors who may have genuinely believed that they were in some sense divine, it would have been a serious blow to their ego to lower themselves down from that. Christianity also teaches that all human beings are equal before God, wealth or political power do not grant a person any special treatment or make them exempt from the moral codes of Christianity. Likewise gender and citizenship were also irrelevant. There is substantial scriptural evidence for this. For Example: “Now I also am a mortal, the same as all men, and earthborn, a descendant of the first-formed man; for in the womb of a mother I was engraved in flesh. In a period of ten months, I was constructed of blood. From the seed of a man and the pleasure of marriage. When I was born, I breathed the common air, then fell upon the earth the same as all; and as my first sound I cried like everyone else. I was nursed with care in swaddling cloths. Thus no king had a different beginning of existence, for there is one entrance into life for all, and a common departure.” (Wis. Of Solomon 7:1-6 NKJV) “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28) The Romans would have found seen this idea of equality as very strange and as presenting a significant challenge to their societal and social order and there were probably some who would have thought that perhaps it could destabilize society as a whole. One thing in Christianity that was not a contradiction of Roman culture, was the idea that those in power had a responsibility to use that power wisely and with justice and integrity. “Give ear, you that rule over the multitudes, and take pride in yourself over a multitude of nations. For power was given to you from the Lord, and your leadership from the Most High, who will make a careful search of your works and examine closely your plans… He shall come upon you terribly and quickly, because sever judgment falls on those who govern. For the least is pardoned in mercy, but the powerful shall be strongly examined.” (Wisdom 6:2-6 NKJV) What the author is stating in the above passage is that rulers are watched more closely and judged more harshly by God because they are responsible for both the material and spiritual wellbeing of their people and must therefore put them above their own desires. Jesus fleshed this out as recorded in the gospel according to Matthew. “Whosoever is first among you let him be your servant.” (Matthew 20:27) Rome already did have a concept of that, somewhat, the Emperor was supposed to be concerned with the wellbeing of his people and responsive to their concerns. In 330 AD the Roman Emperor Constantine I converted to Christianity and thus ended three centuries of persecution. He also moved his capital from Rome to Constantinople. He did not actually make Christianity the sole state religion, but with the passing of the Edict of Milan in 313 AD, Christians went from being under constant threat for their beliefs to quite the opposite. Under Constantine Christianity was given imperial privilege. As Christianity spread throughout the Roman Empire, carried along the roman roads by the Apostles and their students during their missionary journeys, eventually five patriarchates were established throughout the empire, they were Jerusalem, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and eventually Rome itself. Each was the home and office of a Patriarch, a high ranking bishop who had a large regional area of authority. It is important to note however, that no one Patriarch had universal leadership over the church. Instead they worked together as equals. While the empire and the church did become somewhat intertwined, Constantine did not presume to completely overhaul church affairs. He, nor any other Emperor, could settle matters of doctrine and practice on his own. Instead he convened two councils, the council of Nicaea, and the Synod of Arles. This was not a new idea, actually disagreements within the church on matters of morality and doctrine had been settled since its earliest days by councils of bishops and knowledgeable lay people called the Ecumenical Councils. The earliest was the Council of Jerusalem which took place in roughly 49 AD, and is now recorded in the Bible itself in the book of Acts chapter fifteen. This particular dispute was about whether or not, non-Jews should have to be bound by the old Jewish laws or whether they should be allowed to convert without certain rights of passage and initiation which had been part of the older Jewish traditions. This is the account given in the book of Acts: “Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter. And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them; “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. So God acknowledged them by given them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us, and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.” (Acts 15:6-9 NKJV) This account of a much earlier council proves the point that Constantine did not completely overhaul the system Christians had been using, his task in organizing the council of Nicaea, and the Synod of Arles was less radical than that, what it did was establish a precedent that the Emperor was to be kept in the loop, so to speak, and to have a voice in what went on and what was decided by these councils. In 395 AD the empire was divided into east and west when Theodosius split the land between his two sons. Arcadias ruled in the east and his brother Honorius ruled in the west. In the years that followed, the eastern part of the empire was largely spared the problems being had in the west, which was under threat from the Huns, Visigoths, Ostrogoth, vandals, Saxons, Franks, and Jutes. In 410 AD, a Visigoth warrior named Alaric leads his men into Rome itself and sacks the city for three full days. What the Visigoths need is food, but they find very little so they decide to move on rather quickly. Unfortunately, the damage has already been done. The western Roman Empire had been having serious problems for many years by then but this marks the final nail in the coffin and from here on out the empire is dead. Clovis, king of Franks, converted to Christianity on December 25, 496 AD, for several reasons. His Catholic wife, Clotilda, urged him to, and she was far from the only Christian in Clovis’ kingdom. As his conquests brought him further and further into territory that had been once under the control of Rome, a higher and higher number within his kingdom were Christians. Clovis realized that one way to gain the trust and support of his new subjects was to adopt the religion they held dear. The East enjoyed stability, wealth, and prestige due to the lack of siege attempts and its geographic location which made it an important trade center between Europe and Asia. This led directly to an economic divide and less directly to cultural and religious divides. Arguably one of the most significant divides in the history of the Christian faith was something now called the “Great Schism” which came to a head in 1054 AD. The church in Rome was teaching things that went against the established doctrines of the church. He had added two words to the creed of basic doctrines which had been established over 700 years earlier at the council of Nicaea. The Nicene Creed had originally said the Son and the Holy Ghost both proceeded from the Father, the change made by Leo now said that the Holy Ghost proceeded from the Father and the Son. While the change seemed small, the new wording had massive theological ramifications regarding the church’s understanding of the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. What’s more Pope Leo IX was making a move to shake the structure of church organization to its core. Up until this point the Pope had been equal to the other patriarchs; but Leo was making the claim that as the successor of St. Peter, the original patriarch of Rome, he had universal headship over the unified church as a whole. This was the straw that broke the camel’s back, so to speak, causing a bitter feud and mutual excommunication between Leo IX and Michael I, the current Patriarch of Constantinople at that time. In understanding why Leo tried to increase his authority and prestige by claiming universal headship, one must consider the political reality of the day. The western Empire lay in shambles, ruled by barbarian tribes and kings and splintered into many, many, fragments. Claiming universal headship over the entirety of the church would have (had it actually worked as planned) cemented the importance of Rome and turned it, once again, into a center of pilgrimage and trade. Also, by gaining authority over the four Eastern patriarchates, the Pope would have also opened the door to restoring political relations between the east and west. This is the part that most outright failed. After excommunicating Michael and everyone under his jurisdiction along with him, for refusing to go along with the changes, he turned his attentions to the other three churches, and found them every bit as unwilling to budge. Having been excommunicated by all four main churches in the east, Rome and the west was now on its own religiously as well as politically. Once the church was also divided between east and west, the final source of connection to the east was severed and the west fell deeper and deeper into darkness for the next four hundred years.