Health and Wealth at Whose Expense?
Moving forward from my reflections on Ignatius of Antioch, and the early church attitudes towards suffering and martyrdom, I would like to reflect a bit on the Imperial Church, and specifically on some of the theology that arose during the time of Constantine. What strikes me most from this time was how the new Christian theology was shaped by the circumstances surrounding Constantine’s rule, and in some regards to how drastically it abandoned some of the early church’s traditional themes.
There are a few main examples that I would like to briefly mention in order to illustrate the manner in which theology was shaped by the new circumstances during this period of history in the church.
In the New Testament as well as in the early church we see that the Gospel was first of all good news to the poor, and that the rich had particular difficulty in hearing and receiving it. This theological position was so firmly believed that some early Christians even went so far as to question and wonder how it was possible for a rich person to be saved. However, with Constantine came a time in which riches and extravagant living were seen as signs of divine favor. One of the leading theologians during this time was Eusebius of Caesarea. He was at the forefront in the guiding and teaching of the theology that was shaping (or was being shaped by) the church during this period. It seems fairly obvious that he was quite heavily influenced along these lines of wealth and riches being a sign of divine favor. However, some scholars have said that Eusebius was possibly not really aware of the radical change that was taking place, as the persecuted church became the church of the powerful.
One of the main problems I see that arose from this was the development of a clerical aristocracy that was very similar to the imperial aristocracy, who were undoubtedly very far from the common people, as were the great officers of the Empire. During this time the church began to imitate the Empire in its liturgy as well as in its social structure.
In my opinion, this was probably the birth of the theology that surrounds and supports the prosperity gospel that has continued to this day in several Evangelical Christian circles and denominations. In many ways the monastic movement that really began to gain momentum and popularity around this time as well, was in part a protest against this accommodating understanding of the Christian life.
Another radical theological change that took place during this time that Eusibius helped develop was the setting aside of a fundamental theme of early Christian preaching: the coming Kingdom of God. In many of Eusibius’ works we get the impression that with Constantine and his successors the plan of God was fulfilled. A theme taught by Eusibius was that all Christians were to hope for, beyond the present political order, was their own transference into the heavenly kingdom. Since the time of Constantine, there has been 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.
I do not mean to say that all of these theological changes were solely due to the teaching of Eusibius, for in actuality he was simply expressing the common feeling among the vast majority of Christians during this period of history.
In reflection, I believe we see a few dangerous fundamental changes from the theological orientation of the early church that have continued to the present day. The first being the drastic change in the theological position that the Gospel is first of all good news to the poor. Since the time of Constantine until our present day we have seen continued growth and adherence to the message of the prosperity gospel, while often times ignoring the cries of the poor. Not only do we see all of the television evangelists who preach and teach the message of a prosperity gospel, but we now have very large and popular mainstream churches springing up in the western world (one such church was birthed in Australia and has since gained a large following in America and Western Europe) that adhere to this theological orientation. In adherence to this theology we are saying that the Gospel is no longer first of all good news to the poor. In my opinion, holding a belief in this theological position is a self-centered way of living, making things all about ourselves. Jesus clearly lived out a radically different lifestyle.
The second outcome from these theological changes was the shift from a more heavenly orientation, and a hope and longing for the coming return of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the establishment of His Kingdom that will bring peace and justice to the world. We should always be looking heavenward, longing and hoping for the return of our Lord Jesus Christ!
The Gospel that Jesus taught was never one that said riches and wealth and power and prestige were signs of divine favor. Jesus preached and taught quite the opposite.
Peace friends,
Matthew Pascal
There are a few main examples that I would like to briefly mention in order to illustrate the manner in which theology was shaped by the new circumstances during this period of history in the church.
In the New Testament as well as in the early church we see that the Gospel was first of all good news to the poor, and that the rich had particular difficulty in hearing and receiving it. This theological position was so firmly believed that some early Christians even went so far as to question and wonder how it was possible for a rich person to be saved. However, with Constantine came a time in which riches and extravagant living were seen as signs of divine favor. One of the leading theologians during this time was Eusebius of Caesarea. He was at the forefront in the guiding and teaching of the theology that was shaping (or was being shaped by) the church during this period. It seems fairly obvious that he was quite heavily influenced along these lines of wealth and riches being a sign of divine favor. However, some scholars have said that Eusebius was possibly not really aware of the radical change that was taking place, as the persecuted church became the church of the powerful.
One of the main problems I see that arose from this was the development of a clerical aristocracy that was very similar to the imperial aristocracy, who were undoubtedly very far from the common people, as were the great officers of the Empire. During this time the church began to imitate the Empire in its liturgy as well as in its social structure.
In my opinion, this was probably the birth of the theology that surrounds and supports the prosperity gospel that has continued to this day in several Evangelical Christian circles and denominations. In many ways the monastic movement that really began to gain momentum and popularity around this time as well, was in part a protest against this accommodating understanding of the Christian life.
Another radical theological change that took place during this time that Eusibius helped develop was the setting aside of a fundamental theme of early Christian preaching: the coming Kingdom of God. In many of Eusibius’ works we get the impression that with Constantine and his successors the plan of God was fulfilled. A theme taught by Eusibius was that all Christians were to hope for, beyond the present political order, was their own transference into the heavenly kingdom. Since the time of Constantine, there has been 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.
I do not mean to say that all of these theological changes were solely due to the teaching of Eusibius, for in actuality he was simply expressing the common feeling among the vast majority of Christians during this period of history.
In reflection, I believe we see a few dangerous fundamental changes from the theological orientation of the early church that have continued to the present day. The first being the drastic change in the theological position that the Gospel is first of all good news to the poor. Since the time of Constantine until our present day we have seen continued growth and adherence to the message of the prosperity gospel, while often times ignoring the cries of the poor. Not only do we see all of the television evangelists who preach and teach the message of a prosperity gospel, but we now have very large and popular mainstream churches springing up in the western world (one such church was birthed in Australia and has since gained a large following in America and Western Europe) that adhere to this theological orientation. In adherence to this theology we are saying that the Gospel is no longer first of all good news to the poor. In my opinion, holding a belief in this theological position is a self-centered way of living, making things all about ourselves. Jesus clearly lived out a radically different lifestyle.
The second outcome from these theological changes was the shift from a more heavenly orientation, and a hope and longing for the coming return of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the establishment of His Kingdom that will bring peace and justice to the world. We should always be looking heavenward, longing and hoping for the return of our Lord Jesus Christ!
The Gospel that Jesus taught was never one that said riches and wealth and power and prestige were signs of divine favor. Jesus preached and taught quite the opposite.
“Blessed are the poor in spirit, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are those who mourn, For they shall be comforted. Blessed are the meek, For they shall inherit the earth. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, For the shall be filled. Blessed are the merciful, For they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the pure in heart, For they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers, For they shall be called sons of God. Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake, For theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 5:3-10
Peace friends,
Matthew Pascal
posted by Matthew Pascal @ 2:55 PM
2 comments
2 Comments:
You're on the right track MP. Constantinian "faith" has twisted the gospel in many American churches into a lapdog for power and money. The alternative to that kind of false Christianity is a prophetic faith that re-introduces the Sermon on the Mount and the heart of Jesus' message. I'm very confident Jesus never intended a religion that became the primary religious justification for the latest military and political and cultural power in the world.
A late jump into this conversation:
I think another thing that adds in to this theological switch during the reign of Constantine was the formalization of the Church's recognition (and even promotion) by the State government, in this case the Roman Empire. I think, reflecting back also on your earlier blog regarding persecution and also the entries about voting and politics, we must never underestimate the reality that a state-sanctioned religion always becomes less threatening to the status quo of popular thought. By the act of the powerful adopting an ideology that has theretofore belonged to the marginalized and oppressed (and used as a powerful form of protest, such as the Gospel must be in circumstances of injustice and oppression) they are able to neutralize that ideology's ability to challenge their lifestyle by twisting the pieces that don't quite fit...like teachings about wealth and power. This happens most often when different types of power become intertwined--when clerical authority becomes a government-appointed position, and when the Kingdom of Heaven is forsaken for a Kingdom on Earth, that is brought about by human hands and human laws...This is a constant problem, one that we in America must continue to confront in our own political thinking and the ways we understand the relationship between Church and State.
Post a Comment
<< Home