Home » story & idea

The Empire and the Gospel

Submitted by Maria Kirby on October 23, 2008 – 9:32 pmComments
Print This Post

I’ve been reading Jesus Manifesto for a little over a year now. I like the emphasis on ministering to the poor and living the gospel of peace and forgiveness. I like the honesty and thoughtfulness of all the writers. I appreciate that fact that the writers’ are willing to expose injustice, their suggestions for peaceful solutions, and their honesty about how difficult it is to live the gospel we preach. I like their well thought out challenges to conventional wisdom.

However, I have yet to read something that commends a governmental institution or large religious establishment. Maybe this is because Jesus Manifesto is trying to move the religious pendulum in the other direction, but I get a little queasy with the idea of painting all government with brushstrokes of violence, greed, and abusive power. I’m uncomfortable with equating my home country, USA, with an Empire that needs to be overthrown through subversive methods. I am very uncomfortable with seeing only the negative aspects of large religious institutions without complimenting the positive. I am willing to admit that my country is not perfect, that large does not necessarily mean better, that there are abuses of power happening, that Jesus’ methods of turning the other cheek and walking the second mile have largely been sidelined for glamour and prosperity messages, but that doesn’t mean that I am ready to ditch the system or set up my own church. The bias of Jesus Manifesto has motivated me to study Church history, to form my own opinions about what the past has to say about the relationship between power, money, and ministry.

Through reading the scriptures, I was already aware of how intertwined religion and power were in the Old Testament. Prophets were instrumental in choosing military saviors and dynasties. Kings appointed priests. Central power, secular or religious, provided a national identity and cohesion. Sometimes the religious and secular overlapped such as in King David and King Hezekiah, other times they were more separate such as Ezra and Nehemiah. Distributed power and religious practice allowed for continuity through turbulent times such as in the time of Judges, or Israel’s apostasy, or even later with Daniel and Ezekiel.
There always seemed to be a certain amount of tension between the various groups. God ordained strong leaders to call his people back to purity; God gave ordinary men a mission to call leaders back to justice. God didn’t seem particular who he used. He called a wealthy man with visions of grandeur to father his people; a stuck up spoiled brat to save an infant nation from starvation; a boy his family forgot about to unite beleaguered and quarrelsome tribes into a country identified with the God of the Universe, a powerful prophet to save a foreign widow, disenfranchised Levites to gather together oral tradition into a written testimony that constitutes large portions of our Bible, groups of poets to encourage a displaced and grieving people, persons who inherited their position of song leader to write psalms.

No matter what political entity was in power, whether heathen or believer, God’s Spirit made use of it. He used godly kings to restore his people to faithfulness. He used godly men and women within heathen governments to testify to his faithfulness and redeem his people.

The pattern I see of God working in the Old Testament is very similar to what I see when I read Church history. God used a pagan Empire’s efficient road system and general peace to spread his good news, He used the effective Roman administration and educational systems to bring order and theological rigor to the new faith. Sometimes, God spread his word through kings such as the conversion of King Olaf of Norway, other times he brought repentance through the poor and enslaved such as St Patrick. Sometimes, it was the religious who broke the power of the secular. Other times, secular power punished immoral religious leadership. Throughout, political power was important for both preserving and promoting religious faith.

When Christian communities lost political power, the Christian faith became extinct in the face of prolonged systematic persecution, similar to the ten lost tribes of Israel. Over the centuries there have been several missionary efforts to China which produced Christian communities: the Nestorian church in the fifth and sixth centuries, the Franciscan efforts during the thirteenth century, and Jesuit followed by protestant efforts beginning in the seventeenth century. The first two attempts became extinct from severe persecution. Only the external political power of Europeans and Americans allowed for the preservation of a Chinese Christian community through several centuries of intermittent persecution. Even then, the Christian community suffered local extinction in some places.

In the sixteenth century, Japan saw a Christian community grow to thirty thousand and then go extinct when political forces turn against it. In the eighth century, Christian communities in the Middle East and North Africa suffered under Islamic expansion, surviving when it was in the economic interest of the Imam to allow a degree of tolerance. Even in modern (or post-modern) times we have witnessed the difficulty of Christianity to survive severe persecution and genocide, such as in former Communist countries and Sudan.

I will admit that ministry doesn’t thrive very well with an excess of money and power; that Christian witness dies when Christians are more focused on attaining either than their Lord or their fellow man. From my brief review of historical evidence it seems as though there is a delicate balance between excess and dearth that allows for the spread of Christianity. In some ways it seems as though the pendulum swing between poverty and wealth drives the ratchet, and keeps the spirit ticking.

Author Bio:: An admirer of Jesus Manifesto, and a daydreamer with more ideas than energy, time, or money to make happen. And who sometimes wishes for the ordinary, like a clean house.

http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/digg_32.png http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/reddit_32.png http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/stumbleupon_32.png http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/delicious_32.png http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/google_32.png http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/facebook_32.png http://www.jesusmanifesto.com/wp-content/plugins/sociofluid/images/twitter_32.png

About Mark Van Steenwyk

Mark Van Steenwyk is a member of Missio Dei. He is a speaker, writer, educator, and grassroots organizer. With the support of the Central Plains Mennonite Conference, he travels to radical and intentional communities around the country to help network and offer support.

  • Charles H. Featherstone
    Nicely written and nicely considered.

    I speak as an anarchist whose anarchy is increasingly informed by the Gospel. I have posted on this website before that we, as church, have no business seeking political power because politics is violence.

    But there is also a reality that political activity is inescapable, that two or more human beings put together will create, legitimize and sustain authority and collectivize resources. I don't like government or the state, and believe Jesus shows us that we surrender to power without making demands or claims or assertions of privilege, and that when we claim to do those things for others (the historic Christian justification for power), we really do them for ourselves. (Any claim of power of privilege on behalf of another, say the poor or some victim, is also a claim to power and privilege on the part of the claimant; this is my greatest disagreement with Luther's thinking on the subject.) But government and the state are inevitable (not necessary, but inescapable). In any community or polity with a majority of Christians, they will exercise political power. This also means violence.

    Many anarchists point to God's warning to Samuel when Israel demands a king. These warnings describe the depredations of an institutionalized and complex state well. But what many ignore when they repeat these warnings is that God gives Israel a king anyway, and then makes promises to Israel -- and to David -- about what the monarchy will accomplish and how it will be involved in God's saving work. Isaiah relates the word of God claiming Cyrus, the King of Persia, as God's anointed one -- a messiah -- even though Cyrus does not even know God and is not one of God's people.

    My main concern is with the claim by some that certain political figures, ideologies or types of state are more in line with God's demand for God's people and the world than others. I saw this with conservative evangelical support for George W. Bush and his regime as well as progressive support for Barack Obama and his campaign and soon-to-be regime. I am also concerned that too many people confuse the social democratic welfare state with either the kingdom of God or with God's call for "justice" in the world. There is the reality that the state is violence, and when we defend the state or seek to use the state to achieve what we consider noble or descent ends, we must remember that inherent in all state action is the threat of violence. I don't believe Jesus calls us to engage in violence, but I also know that we are forgiven because in our sinful state violence is inescapable.

    It is clear that God uses us at our worst to achieve God's ends, that the good of God comes out of the evil we as human beings do. I am a seminarian because in the midst of the September 11 attacks, in the midst of the death and terror at the World Trade Center, I realized Jesus was speaking to me, telling me "My love is all that matters" and "This is who I am." I am still trying to make sense of it all.
  • exogesis
    Hello all

    As a Pastor I have come to dislike the political seasons as many try to use the forum of fellowship to dispel the junk of political systems. The Kingdom of God as far as I can tell from history, progresses in spite of the systems of men. It has always been the road less traveled or as a famous rabbi once said the narrow road. It seems to be a follower of Christ is to always be in the opposition, counter to and distrustful of the herd. It has been said "Government is best that governs least" this is true of all systems of men including those of the Kingdom of God.

    Sincerely but not Seriously
    Pastor Bill
  • Great thoughts. Most of my own setiments already seemed covered. However, I just want to add some reflections:

    It is important that we, in our desire to live faithfully in the "empire" that we don't fixate merely on opposing Empire, but in embodying the Kingdom.

    Nevertheless, one cannot embody the Kingdom without also resisting Empire (struggling with the Principalities and Powers). We are certainly to turn the other cheek, to love our neighbors, and to pray for the government. But we are also to no longer be conformed to the the spirit of the age. One must resist consumerism, for example, as one pursues simplicity. Without resistance (of the proper, loving sort) one cannot move into a new way of living.
  • I find your use of the word "empire" rather disconcerting. Too often it seems to be connected to the political entity of the USA government, but I sense that you mean something broader than that, almost like any governmental system, or maybe even certain political/economic philosophy. It seems to me that the Kingdom of God fits into the general definition of "empire" so to have the two words/phrases contrasted is confusing.
  • Whew, it's been awhile JM. Hope everyone is doing well in this community that has both nurtured and challenged me over the last year or so. Sorry I've been so distant.
    Maria, I understand your discomfort with the term "empire." It might be the #3 word used on this site (right behind "the," and "I"). And definitions for what is empire and what is not abound, which makes it all the more difficult to know how to feel about the term when it is used in particular contexts.

    I personally favor the definition given in Colossians Remixed by Brian J. Walsh and Sylvia C. Keesmaat (they may have borrowed it from elsewhere): "Empire are totalizing by definition...Empires are [1]built on systematic centralizations of power, [2] secured by structures of socioeconomic and military control, [3] religiously legitimated by powerful myths and [4] sustained by a proliferation of imperial images that captivate the imaginations of the population."

    We tend to focus on 1 and 2, but it's 3 and 4 that really oil the machine and are unconsciously served in the lives of so many. And I think it's 3 and 4 that this website tends to name, which is why there is often a pushback by many readers (which isn't a bad thing in itself). It's far easier for some people to admit that the U.S. maintains control through military might. It's when we point out the consumerist impulse that owns our imaginations and is legitimized on Sundays that people get really uneasy.
  • I'm using them as contrast words, in much the way Jerusalem and Babylon are contrasted. The book of Revelation gives a good contrast between kingdom and empire that is illustrative. We must always resist empire in whatever form we find it (as defined by systemic coercive oppression) by living faithfully, pursuing justice, showing love, and exposing the powers.
  • Great post Maria. As someone whose personal politics might be described as classical conservatism but who often finds himself attracted to a more anabaptist/Christian anarchy perspective, I feel the same discomfort as you and experience the same tension.

    I also appreciate the comments from hewhocutsdown, especially the point about generally ignoring governments and politics as much as possible while focusing on living out the gospel. I think that comports well with the words of Paul in Romans 13 and of Peter in 1 Peter 2, as well as some other parts of the New Testament. One thing I've noticed from people of varying and widely different political convictions who self-identify as Christians, including myself, is the too easy tendency to allow our Christian faith to become too defined by the politics we choose.

    For an interesting perspective on how Christ stands above and judges all human political systems and perspectives, I strongly recommend Stephen J. Keillor's book "God's Judgments," one of the best, most thought provoking books I've read this year. Peace.
  • Patrick
    To me the best way it seems to not get caught up in just bashing of gervnment closely, is subersion through ignoring the government and living out the gospel(submissive non-compliance) rather than subversion through focusing on just figting the government. That in itself becomes idolatrous.
  • I love what you've brought to the fore, Maria.

    One of my biggest concerns with Jesus Manifesto is that it might turn into a myopic, navel-gazing gripe-fest. :) I think we've avoided that thus far, but it's a fine line sometimes.

    But I know Nathan and I kind of raise eyebrows a lot when comments will pop up that are strongly anti-government politically but not economically, or Mark and I where there seems to be a social critique without Christ's heart behind it. But it's ok, and I've fallen into some of those traps as well.

    But perspective is crucial, and your comment about balance is crucial. Here in the states, the concern about is about too much Christianity in government, not too little; therefore for those arguing against, you begin to sound like a broken record - and if you're not careful, you can begin to think that way too. But it's not as though Christian influence in government is a bad thing, but I think the key word is salt - a little quality salt seasons the whole dish.

    But on the flip side, you have the opposite problem; churches in China or the Middle East or India that appeal for ANY kind of government support, just to end the persecution or to gain religious freedom. I know personally of some Christian leaders who act as liasons between the church and the government, petitioning for greater freedom of movement, greater freedom of speech, the ability to own land, etc.

    But striking the balance is tricky. What many of us have found is that the attitude helps. If I am convinced, as Boyd channeling Ellul indicates, that "In Ellul’s estimation, it’s not appropriate for Kingdom people to either support or revolt against governments. This gives them too much credit. Rather, following the example of Jesus, we should ignore them as much as possible, put up with them as much as we need to, and stay focused on living out the radical Kingdom. If we do this, then we, like Jesus, will find ourselves revolting against the government (and culture). We are, most fundamentally, called to be non-conformists. Our service to the world is the way our counter-cultural lives expose the invalidity of all forms of government by manifesting the reign of God." My convictions in this area have actually spurned social involvement in my local area, and I'm looking into how laws work and how city governance works so that I can make better use of myself in the area.

    So, if I'm reading you right, I think we're close to the same page, and certainly in the same book, but perhaps just reading it different directions. God bless
  • Balance is a word that has little meeting. It is often a way to bring together two different perspectives in the desire to achieve middle ground...but when what is needed is a prophetic way forward, "balance" is often another word for "status quo." Status quo is often a good thing, but sometimes it is a bad thing that needs to be subverted.

    I'm not sure that Jesus (or Paul or Peter or John or whoever) ever advocate "ignoring" the Goverment (or the Empire or the Powers). Rather, we are called to speak lovingly to them, to bear witness to them. Paul tells us in Ephesians that the church is given the role of making the wisdom of God known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenlies. My underestading of these things (in line with Stringfellow and WInk) is that the line between earthly authority structures and systems and the "principalities and powers" is flimsy. In other words, we cannot ignore the powers...we must engage the system. But we must do so prophetically in a way rooted in our kingdom lives together.
  • I agree whole heartedly with engaging the system. I worry that ignoring the government, etc. just allows the devil the opportunity to do his work.

    Because we function through time, there really is no such thing as equilibrium. Status quo is generally referring to the direction we are headed at a given time, whether it is to the right or the left. The Bible is full of mysterious tensions: God is three persons in one, the kingdom of God is here now and yet to come, we can grieve the death of someone and rejoice in their everlasting life.

    Wealth and power are also in one of those mysterious tensions with poverty that God uses to move his Kingdom forward. Maintaining the status quo with either direction is problematic and leads away from God. Keeping them in tension, allowing them to spin around each other like a wheel, keeps us in balance and brings the kingdom of heaven to earth.
  • The Kingdom of God, the reign of God, is here; now. Living in this "native country" I must live by the ways of that reign, must live that life-style, must desire this and work and live for this. This will not help the military industrial economic complex of any nation, but it will bring life to the dead, meaning to all that has happened and is happening and will ever happen even in those very nations and complexes of their reign. Only seeing the world through this lens or in this Light give me hope and here and now in the midst of the ways of the world man have made--joy; the American Dream is for Americans; the Marxist Dream for Marxists, etc, but the Dream of God, the view of this world from the other side of the cross (right here in this very world), from the eyes of one who has been raised from the world of the dead in Christ, sees the same world as everyone else, but one in which even sin is now seen in Light (Glory, for it is God's Light) of the cross and resurrection and presence of God among us here and now in concrete human flesh in the person before me. The Kingdoms of the world man has constructed of the things of the God can not (can not, not will not) bring anything but greater power and use of that power and therefore violence to bring about even peace. Hence "peace-makers" as a euphemism for "armed Force." Live in the Kingdoms of this world as pilgrims. Love it, work for it's peace, but we are citizens, fellow citizens of the kingdom of God. That is not something to work for, it is here. Faith is a matter of living in that kingdom, here and now.
  • awesome article...more complete response coming. :) Thanks, Maria
  • Ted
    Maria,

    Because we have gently sparred a bit in the past, and because you have taken the time to share your thoughts in this way, I thought I'd take a moment to say that I'm more sympathetic than I was, say, six months ago. My reasons are almost certainly different from yours, but that doesn't matter so much. Like you, I retain an admiration for those who maintain a consistently radical outlook.

    Me, I've had to make peace with the realization that I'm more of a liberal. It's not as sexy, but the shoe fits. You? Well, I can't represent you -- that's your prerogative. Keep it up.

    Peace to you,

    Ted
  • Thanks.

    I really don't know what label I fit into. My sons' classmates think we're some sort of technological Amish. But I doubt the Amish or Mennonites would really find themselves compatible with some of my beliefs.
  • Yes, but we still know who are the Nestorians ARE and we know about Matteo Ricci, and we know their legacies. All of these groups are important to Christianity, and much of the time, when Christianity is supported by empire, Christianity becomes stagnant (as it did in SOME places during SOME periods of the Middle Ages, I'm a historian, so I don't like to make generalizations about history). The facts also from Acts and other places that Christianity grows expotentially when it is in opposition to empire, as it was for the first three centuries to Nicea and Constantine.
  • When Christianity is seen as the opposite of corrupt authority it attracts followers. In post-Christendom many people equate Christianity with corrupt authority, particularly here in the USA. so Christian groups that are anti-political or apolitical have more traction than those who want to participate in the system.

    But I would still like to contend that the growth of the Church during the first three centuries had a lot to do with the fact that the Roman Empire had a general policy of religious tolerance and travel within the empire was relatively safe and easy. When Christians were persecuted in one locale they had the opportunity to move to another where there was less or none at all.
  • dan
    Hello Maria,

    Kudos to you for writing something that (as far as I can tell) won't go over all that well with the crowd here. Of course, I disagree with most of what you say as well, but still, kudos. This sort of dialogue is very good.

    There is much that I would want to challenge or question about what you say, but I reckon other commentators have and will continue to jump on those things.

    At the point, I only really want to challenge the historical point you make about the growth of Christianity in the first three centuries. You mention two common misconceptions: (1) that the Empire had a general policy of religious tolerance; and (2) that travel within the empire was "relatively safe and easy".

    I'll start with the second point. The word "relatively" is important here. Yes, the Romans built a lot of roads and, yes, this made travel easier for some, and faster for a good many. Yes, the Romans had also cleared the Mediterranean of most (the rhetoric of 'all' is a little over-inflated!) pirates, so that also made sea travel relatively safer. However, the roads generally were safer for those who were armed (soldiers) or those who could afford to travel with armed guards and companions (the wealthy). For other travelers, like a poor artisan like Paul, the roads were still quite dangerous. Think of the dangers Paul lists in his travels and we begin to see how dangerous travel was for the vast majority of people within the empire. The dangers faced by Paul are extreme by our standards, even if travel was 'relatively' safer than before the roads were built. The same can be said about sea travel. The removal of pirates made travelers safer from harmful people, but not from other elements. Recall, again, that Paul was shipwrecked on more than one occasion. This would not be an uncommon experience. Thus, for example, when we read authors like Juvenal, we hear multiple references to beggars sitting with pictures of a ship in a storm, which shows that they were made destitute because they were shipwrecked and lost everything (this was how beggars communicated in a largely illiterate society).

    Returning to your first point, it should be emphasised that the religious tolerance shown by Rome carried a good many provisos. Thus, for example, Romans allowed many people to worship a variety of gods -- but they also required people to participate in the Imperial Cult (NB: this is true of the early imperium, and not just of the later empire). So, the empire would tolerate a good many of your gods, if you would also tolerate its gods. A group that wanted to be shown tolerance, while refusing to participate in things like the imperial cult, would not be tolerated.

    Further, being fearful of the development of subversive groups, the Romans put strict boundaries on what religious groups could and could not do. Thus, for example, meeting together on a weekly basis was illegal. Things get interesting here, because the Jews were pretty unique in being allowed to meet weekly in Synagogues and celebrate Sabbath (although the Jews had an uneasy [at best!] relationship with Rome). Thus, I would suggest that a good many of the tensions that exist between Paul and the so-called 'Judaizers' is tension related to the political status of the early Christian communities. In particular, the Jewish communities want to argue to the authorities that Paul and his people are practicing an illegal religion (which was true) and so the 'Judaizers' wanted to take on the traditional marks of Judaism in order to avoid (political) persecution. It is this that Paul rejects. Christians must be willing to move into subversive and illegal territory... come what may.

    So this, then, begins to pain a different picture of primitive Christianity, arguing that its growth should not be premised upon assistance form the Empire. Instead, I think we should look elsewhere for explanations of the growth of Christianity.

    However, I've gone on far too long. Grace and peace to you.
  • Dan,

    I find it interesting about what you say about the Judaizers. It is a different take than I was unaware of. I will admit I am not a historian. I also agree with your statement “Christians must be willing to move into subversive and illegal territory... come what may.” And in many ways I embrace a radical lifestyle. But I don’t want to be radical for radical sake. When I read the Bible I hear two messages one is to be radical and the other is to conform. One is to obey and serve the authorities and the other is that we live above the law because we obey God’s law of love. There seems to be limits to being subversive. There seems to be circumstances when government is sanctioned.
    When I use the word ‘relative’, I am comparing religious freedom and ease of travel to regions outside the Roman Empire, not to 21st century convenience or toleration. Much of the hardship that Paul endured had to do with the negative reaction of those who heard his message, not necessarily the difficulty of travel. And much of the toleration of Christianity had to do with how the Roman Empire tolerated the Jews from which Christianity derived.
    The disciples of Jesus spread out geographically in many directions. Yet the gospel took hold and spread more rapidly in the region controlled by the Roman Empire than any other geographic region. Of course, there could be many reasons for this. But I specifically highlighted China because it was a region of comparative structure in civilization, technology, and government.
    Both the Roman Empire and China developed a thriving Christian culture. In 638 A.D., in Changan, China, the emperor even sanctioned a Christian church to be built. However, the times of persecution in China were sustained over a much longer period and were consistent over a larger region than what occurred in the Roman Empire. As a result, Christianity died out in China.
    Christianity survived in the Roman Empire. During the last great persecution of Christians by Emperor Diocletian there were a number of regions where
    Diocletian’s persecutions were not carried out evenly through the Empire. In some provinces, Roman rulers and forces didn’t have the power or resources to carry them out. In others, particularly the large eastern cities, there were so many Christians that the authorities could not carry them out, aside perhaps from a few “examples.” http://www.earlychristianhistory.info/donatus.html
    Later, many of the places where the Roman Empire was unable to eliminate Christianity, Christianity became extinct with the invasion of Islam. When Christian’s political power failed, either through lack of sufficient number and/or through lack of persons of sufficient political power, Christianity became extinct.
    The early Church history records numerous examples of early believers who held political power: Lydia the dealer of purple cloth, Jason in Thessalonica, Cornelius the centurion. While it may be true that most Christians were not rich or powerful, it seems as though a good deal of our faith’s survival has been due to the influence such persons wielded.
  • dan
    Maria,

    Thanks for taking the time to reply to my (altogether too lengthy!) comment. If you are interested in further pursuing the notion of the 'Judaizers' as those who are interested in avoiding political persecution, I highly recommend that you read Mikael Tellbe's Paul Between Synagogue and State. It is a tour de force and I am baffled that it does not get cited more regularly by folks who are interested in a (properly) political reading of Paul (Mark & Co., y'all should definitely check this book out, if you haven't already!).

    That said, I whole-heartedly empathise with your desire not to "be radical for the sake of being radical". Sadly, there are too many within so-called counter-cultural Christian movements who fit that description and, alas, there are seeds of that in my own heart (as you will know if you bothered to look at my blog and read my recent post on hypocrisy).

    I would want to question you a bit more about the way in which you feel the bible calls you to "conform"... but that is a large topic and, perhaps, one best left for another day. Instead, I want to continue to pursue the historical arguments you offer.

    First of all, I want to challenge your statement that "the gospel took hold and spread more rapidly in the region controlled by the Roman Empire than any other geographic region", as I believe this to be another common misconception. At best, it is an argument from silence (a dangerous sort of argument when we engage in historical research!). The fact is, it appears as though Christianity took hold and spread faster in the Empire than elsewhere... but we are almost totally ignorant of how quickly Christianity spread in other places or of how much it had taken hold before the rise of Islam wiped everything else off of the map (and out of the record books!). Simply put... we really don't know how the spread in the Empire compares to its spread in Africa and Asia (and the amazing and ongoing existence of groups as the Ethiopian Orthodox Church [which traces itself back to Philip] and the Malankara Orthodox Church [which traces itself back to Thomas] should give us pause). So, I don't find arguments based upon the lack of other evidence to be too convincing. Again, I would look to other things to explain the spread of Christianity.

    Secondly, I would want to challenge your last paragraph regarding the significance of so-called "powerful" people within the New Testament communities. The view you express appears to be representative of the dominant popular view in Conservative Christian circles.

    I'm not sure if you're familiar with the scholarly discussion on this topic but basically the view is that early Christianity was a mass movement among the poorer members of society, but that its leaders were a small minority with higher status, who were more rooted in places of influence. Hence, early Christianity is commonly represented as practicing a form of 'love-patriachalism' (a term coined by Ernst Troeltsch and popularised by Gerd Theissen) wherein social hierarchies and structures are respected and maintained, albeit tempered out of compassion for other members of the Church. This position is often called the 'New Consensus' and its main proponents -- people like Theissen, Abraham Malherbe, and Edwin Judge -- were challenging the 'Old Consensus' which emerged at the beginning of the twentieth century based upon the work of Adolf Deissmann and Marxist scholars like Karl Kautsky.

    Well, this so-called 'New Consensus' has been increasingly challenged in recent years, notably by Justin Meggitt (cf. Paul, Poverty, and Survival) and Robert Jewett who argues that the notion of 'love patriarchalism' needs to be replaced by the notion of 'agapaic-communalism' (cf. the relevant passages in his recent commentary on Romans which, by the way, was 26 years in the making!). Suffice to say, I find these readings -- which are supported by so-called 'empire-critical' readings of Paul to be more convincing than the picture offered by Theissen and (seemingly) supported by yourself.

    Finally, as a subpoint on this topic, and an illustration of how the 'New Consensus' has tended to misread the supposed influence of some members of Paul's congregations, let's take the example of Lydia in Philippi (whom you mention). In his compelling commentary on Philippians, Peter Oakes notes that Lydia might not have as much going for her as we imagine. First of all, she suffers from two blows to her status and influence: (1) she is a woman; (2) she is a migrant and an ethnic minority. Now granted, she is relatively (there's that word again!) wealthy, but the likelihood is that she was simply living a little above the subsistence level (NB: given that the majority of the people lived at the subsistence level, or below, Lydia's relative 'wealth' ends up being a far cry from any of our notions of wealth -- importantly this relative wealth would still not place her in any sort of places of influence in Philippi). Thus, Justin Meggitt notes how all of the things we know about Lydia need not denote a high status -- for example, being a 'seller of purple' could just as easily mean that she was a fairly poor producer of dark vegetable dyes.

    Consequently, we find that proponents of the 'New Consensus' are guilty of the same mistakes made by the 'Old Consensus' -- they over-exaggerate their perspective and their position is not sufficiently informed. The pendulum has swung back too far in the opposite direction.

    Now, don't get me wrong, by saying this I'm not arguing for the 'Old Consensus'. I'm just noting that the differences in status between members in the early church may not have been as significant as we have been taught (thus, as a final example, there could be Christians with some money accumulated but they would most likely be socially and politically insignificant as, in Graeco-Roman society, wealth was not a primary indicator of one's status or significance).

    Thus, pace your final assertion, I would want to argue that the survival of our faith wasn't due to a few wealthy patrons; rather, I think our faith survived and spread because each was willing to generously share what he or she had within the new family gathered around Christ.

    Once again, I'm sorry for going on for far, far too long. It's just... well... I'm writing a thesis related to this stuff and I get kind of excited about it. Grace and peace to you.
  • If I could tack on the end of Dan's comments, I would suggest reading "Christians as the Romans Saw them." The book talks about how Rome's view of Christianity actually helped shape Christianity. It was in these responses to Roman criticism that Christianity found its wings. It was in opposition to the Roman way of thinking that Christianity emerged.
  • Yes. Christianity grew under the Roman Empire, but it often grew apart from political power.
  • Is the author suggesting the Kingdom of God is expanded through violent effort?
  • I am not advocating violence, I am merely observing that God uses all circumstances to his glory. I also see that the preservation of Christian community has sometimes resulted in the use of force, much in the same way a porcupine uses quills or horse bites or kicks.
  • Are you condoning such uses of force (what specifically are you referring to within history)?
  • As we continue to review the narrative we have graciously been brought into it can be difficult to discern what lessons are to be learned from our reading and retelling.
    Your words here have reminded me of God's sovereignty, and given me pause to wonder what He is up to. We can ask "why," and "how long" with the Psalmists, because while He has passed down to us a peculiar ethic, it does not always appear that He is playing by the same rules!
    Our friend, Greg Boyd, has undertaken some of this more difficult work, and each of us wrestles with it in some way everyday in practical matters. What has helped me is frequent reminders of God's greatness, and my responsibility to be obedient to what I understand Him to be saying to me through scripture, tradition, and conviction.
    The peculiar ethical stance which rejects the use of force and adopts subversive yet non-violent methods for making space for the church is entered voluntarily. I believe that Christian attempts to manipulate political mechanisms are compromising and end up enlarging the space of the state, crowding out the church, rather than making way for the Kingdom. That God has manipulated these same mechanisms without risk of compromise demonstrates how far above all this He resides.
    We follow the Christarchical path because we believe in miracles, and that in being obedient to His mandate to us, we make room for Him to perform His perfect will in the human institutions which fall under the temporal dominion of the evil one.
    Nathanael Snow
blog comments powered by Disqus