The comments left on my first installment of these reflections on Christendom (I perceive this may be an on going reflection) have lead me to think I need to explain further my expansion of the concept of Christendom.
As I understand have encountered the term "Christendom" falls into two general concepts that often overlap in various discussions 1) Christendom is that social political and cultural situation that Constantine created when he legalized Christianity and essentially made it the religion of the Roman Empire (though it was a long time after Constantine before one needed to be Christian to hold office in the empire, and the full implication of having the potential of the coercive force of the State behind the church was yet to be realized) and which exemplifies Medieval Europe and Christianity. 2) The situtation in the US of de jure disestablishment of any particular Christian church but the de facto establishment first of Protestants and then more generally Christianity as Catholicism looses some of its stigma for Protestants. This de facto establishment does come to be reflected in tax law surrounding clergy and churches.
I want to note that if we allow and most seem to allow for Christendom to exist in both forms above then we have not thought fully the meaning of Christendom, and our use of the term is not useful except to condemn something we don't like in the Church's relationship to the world. I want to move away from the primarily polemical use of the term. This is what I was attempting when I said that Christendom is an effect of the Church in the World. My assertion is that our pejorative understandings of Christendom emerge out of a confusion of Christendom and the Church, a confusion that is common among Christians. However to say that there is a confusion of Church and Christendom and that the two need to be carefully distinguished does not meant that the two can be separated. If there was no Church as an eschatological entity that could effect the world there would be no Christendom. What I am saying is that we cannot avoid Christendom when the circumstances are right for its emergence. I want to say that Christendom exists when the Church's presence is large enough to influence the culture and society, and this influence is largely due to large numbers of Christians across the social stratas of a society and culture. If Christendom only emerges in certain pockets of a society we may not get the political situation where Christians hold the reigns of Political power, so I am not seeing political power and influence as the primary manifestation of Christendom, such is a later stage of Christendom, a maturing if you will.
But most importantly I want to say that Christendom is an effect of the eschatological nature of the Church. That being that The Church as witness to God bringing about a new world and age and that the old world and age are passing away, has real effect in the world- that effect is Christendom. But this effect is not the eschaton thus Christian culture and society is a mixed bag and doesn't create the perfect social order. In some sense those who cling to Christendom and those who reject it completely both expect that the effect of the church in the world is the bringing in of the eschaton, even though I think when pushed they would deny it. In a sense little is in fact lost (from the perspective of the Church, I am not speaking societally or culturally) if Christendom disappears the Church does not change. In the same way in the midst of Christendom the Church is still the Church, only the ability to easily draw a line between Church and World is lost. This is the source of the confusion. In either situation the Christians can loose sight of the eschaton as the founding reality of the Church, I believe this loss is rampant in our situation and this loss of perspective cuts across the churches.
As I understand have encountered the term "Christendom" falls into two general concepts that often overlap in various discussions 1) Christendom is that social political and cultural situation that Constantine created when he legalized Christianity and essentially made it the religion of the Roman Empire (though it was a long time after Constantine before one needed to be Christian to hold office in the empire, and the full implication of having the potential of the coercive force of the State behind the church was yet to be realized) and which exemplifies Medieval Europe and Christianity. 2) The situtation in the US of de jure disestablishment of any particular Christian church but the de facto establishment first of Protestants and then more generally Christianity as Catholicism looses some of its stigma for Protestants. This de facto establishment does come to be reflected in tax law surrounding clergy and churches.
I want to note that if we allow and most seem to allow for Christendom to exist in both forms above then we have not thought fully the meaning of Christendom, and our use of the term is not useful except to condemn something we don't like in the Church's relationship to the world. I want to move away from the primarily polemical use of the term. This is what I was attempting when I said that Christendom is an effect of the Church in the World. My assertion is that our pejorative understandings of Christendom emerge out of a confusion of Christendom and the Church, a confusion that is common among Christians. However to say that there is a confusion of Church and Christendom and that the two need to be carefully distinguished does not meant that the two can be separated. If there was no Church as an eschatological entity that could effect the world there would be no Christendom. What I am saying is that we cannot avoid Christendom when the circumstances are right for its emergence. I want to say that Christendom exists when the Church's presence is large enough to influence the culture and society, and this influence is largely due to large numbers of Christians across the social stratas of a society and culture. If Christendom only emerges in certain pockets of a society we may not get the political situation where Christians hold the reigns of Political power, so I am not seeing political power and influence as the primary manifestation of Christendom, such is a later stage of Christendom, a maturing if you will.
But most importantly I want to say that Christendom is an effect of the eschatological nature of the Church. That being that The Church as witness to God bringing about a new world and age and that the old world and age are passing away, has real effect in the world- that effect is Christendom. But this effect is not the eschaton thus Christian culture and society is a mixed bag and doesn't create the perfect social order. In some sense those who cling to Christendom and those who reject it completely both expect that the effect of the church in the world is the bringing in of the eschaton, even though I think when pushed they would deny it. In a sense little is in fact lost (from the perspective of the Church, I am not speaking societally or culturally) if Christendom disappears the Church does not change. In the same way in the midst of Christendom the Church is still the Church, only the ability to easily draw a line between Church and World is lost. This is the source of the confusion. In either situation the Christians can loose sight of the eschaton as the founding reality of the Church, I believe this loss is rampant in our situation and this loss of perspective cuts across the churches.
Powered by ScribeFire.
Larry, followed you here from Huw's blog.
ReplyDeleteThose Christians who are against Christendom, in the more neutral sense of the concept, often fail to think through some consequences of church growth. That is, once Christians in a country reach a particular critical mass, it will tend to be inevitable that they will be in decision-making positions unless they reject the political process altogether.
While it is argued by some nowadays that Christians in office should be value-neutral, that becomes hard to maintain as an actual practice. Just do a thought experiment. Let's say that Christians become the overwhelming majority in a country which has for many centuries had a practice considered truly offensive, sinful, etc. For instance, think about the practice in old India of the wife being buried with the husband, or in Aztec Central America of human sacrifice, or in Africa of female genital circumcision, or, or, or . . . . Do we just ignore the practice on the ground that we ought not to impose our beliefs on other people, or do we go for an "educational" approach (which means that people continue to die or be tortured), or do we use our political power to stop the practice?
We may not like all the decisions made by earlier Christians. I certainly do not. But, the same people that forbade pagan worship and sacrifice in the Roman Empire---once their numbers were large enough---were also the ones who forbade exposing the elderly or children to the elements to get rid of them. I think they made some great mistakes back then. But, I also know that they were faced with the then new reality of having to put their faith into practice in the political arena.
How would we have responded in such a situation?
Fr. Ernesto
Fr. Ernest,
ReplyDeleteGlad you found your way here. Very good questions. I actually think I am with you on this. I have a deep philosophical bent so I am trying to sort out the ecclesial conditions of Christendom, that allow us to distinguish Church and Christendom. Thus allowing the a continual critique of Christendom by the Church. My sense is that while it is clear that this lack of confusion of Church and Christendom existed it slowly over time was more and more difficult for Christians to keep the distinction uppermost in their minds and hearts.
I actually think that our current sense that Christian politicians should remain value-neutral is an attempt to retain our influence and thus some vestige of Christendom, and thus a betrayal of the Church. It is not clear to me that a Christian politician could truly run as a member of Church and win many elections. Yet, A Christian politician shouldn't run to win elections but to witness to the Truth and if allowed to do so, make the sort of changes in society you suggest.
But we can become addicted to power, the Church should not glory over much in the ability of Christians to gain power in the structures of this world. After all this is all passing away, and God is bring a new aeon and cosmos into being.
I guess where I am trying to get to is where we neither despise Christendom and the potential ability for Christians to effect the world, nor do we trust in Christendom and political power. I fear we all, for the most part, have forgotten that only the Church exists in the world that is to come, all else even Christendom is part of the world that is passing away.
It may not be possible today that a "Christian politician could truly run as a member of Church and win many elections." However, those are rather modern conditions. There were many times in history when a "Churchman" would have been able to do just the opposite. Think of Samuel Wilberforce and the abolition of slavery in England, for instance.
ReplyDeleteThere were even more times when the overwhelming number of people were Christian and every member of the government would have been Christian. Think Ireland before the English invations. That is the place where the "rubber meets the road." How do you run a country if you are all Christians? How do you handle a police force? Do you have an Army? How do you punish lawbreakers and keep society stable? What is the place of war, if any? When you read St. Augustine on some of these subjects (as well as St. Basil, etc.) you catch bishops and saints of the Church struggling mightily with the question of, "what do we do now!?" Calvin and Luther ended up in the same dilemma, as did the Anglicans. And even the Anabaptists, when they reached majority status in some of the Southern states, could not keep themselves out of the necessity of running the Christian State.
Our modern post-Enlightenment and post-Radical Reformation (the Anabaptists rather than the Reformers) mindset has given us the pseudo-freedom of proudly assuming that the Church should not be involved in politics (and maybe politicians not in the Church). But if one considers the secular end-result of that choice, in Europe, America, Australia, one could legitimately conclude that this was not a better choice at all!
So let me repeat, as long as the Church is in the minority or ineffective, there is no overt problem. We are a counter-culture. But when we become the active majority, then some almost impossible choices face us.
Fr. Ernesto
Fr. Ernesto,
ReplyDeleteYes, I think I agree with you.... hmm, which means either I am articulating my position poorly or you believe I am attempting to argue for "our modern post-enlightenment post-Radical Reformation mindset" which I am not. Though I am trying to root out that mindset or at least that which is false in it. I am perhaps also trying to see if there is any truth in it, or rather what the truth is since I do believe there is some truth there. I am trying to critique the complete rejection of Christendom, both by saying we simply will have it, and critique the reification of Christendom as if we can't distinguish Christendom from the Church. I think this reification in part leads to the above mindset you speak of.