Pages

Sunday, July 10, 2016

MATL - Reflections on Frontline From Jesus to Christ - Part IV: The Development of Doctrine

Note: this is part four of a four-part journal entry exploring and evaluating the Frontline series, "From Jesus to Christ" available for free online at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/
I have altered the publication dates so the first entry is listed as the most recent publication, to help facilitate reading order.

Prompt: What difference did Rome's embracing of Christianity make to the development of Christian doctrine? 

 Roman policy embraced all religions, so long as the worshipers conducted civil duty, which included sacrifices to the Emperor and to national Gods on important holidays.  This implies that political policy was not driven by any one religion or sect, but rather was unified through the veneration of the Emperor.  In addition, most pagan religions were fairly tolerant of other religions and fluid in their acceptance of multiple practices of worship.  The Jewish people and the Christians challenged these conventions in their strict adherence to a single, loving (albeit sometimes jealous and possessive) God.  So, prior to the adoption of Christianity by the Roman leadership, the Christians and the Jewish people made themselves outsiders by not following civic procedures. It might loosely be compared to a modern conflict where a small group refuses to say the Pledge of Allegiance before class starts, or to stand during the national anthem.  The group seems odd and out of place, but not particularly dangerous or harmful, until the anti-civic behavior begins to spread into other areas.  This 'outsideness' combined with the distinction between the Jewish people and the Christian people and ultimately led to the persecution of the Christians by the Romans.  The documentary emphasizes that the Romans would not have considered this anathema to their religious tolerance policies because Christianity was too new to be a religion.  Of course, as history shows us, the Romans were too late to stop the spread of the Christian effort, and the basic premises of Christianity- to live like Christ- filled such an important social gap in the world by institutionalizing the care for poor and suffering that had the Romans succeeded in wiping out Christianity, it would have left an enormous vacuum of social service.  The potential impacts of this on the Roman society are catastrophic.

 When Rome made Christianity the official religion, it upended the standards of belief for the region going back to the beginning of civilization, and likely longer.  This was not just the simple preference of a person for one God or cult over another- this was the Emperor, the supreme and final authority of the entire developed world known at the time, saying that there was One True God- a supreme and final authority over heaven, as the Emperor was on Earth.  This had lots of daily benefits to the Christians, because it made Christianity financially sustainable, it stopped the executions, and it supported the propaganda efforts to evangelize to the population.  Whether Constantine was sincere in his conversion or not, he wisely co-opted the work of the Christians to ensure ongoing stability among the largest social class within the Empire.

 This highly public and official status might have prevented ongoing evolution of the Christian interpretation of the events surrounding Jesus, and led to the standardization of the doctrine of the Bible. This left enormous elements of the historical record theological record out of canon, and probably for political or social reasons rather than as a result of thoughtful meditation of the will of God for the production of this (final?) Word of God.   Women were assigned the roles they lived in society, rather than the roles alluded to by the followers of Jesus.  Other Gospels were left out of the teaching. The debate of myth and symbolism over the resurrection ended, and it became fact.  One speaker in the documentary mentioned wondering whether the original writers knew not to take the Bible literally and contemporary readers were too ignorant to understand the intent of the Bible, and I think those origins of literalism started here.  A government cannot be squiffy and subject to interpretation and revision by any teacher who drums up a following or there would be chaos. If Christianity was to survive as the religion of the global empire, it had to tighten things up.  As such, the Christian church embarked on a statehood of its own. As history shows us, the Church became a social political entity with tremendous power and influence in Europe and the near East into the early 20th century.  Even yet, the Catholic Church retains legal and political jurisdiction over Vatican City inside the legal political entity of Rome. The relationship between Christianity and government, which began with Roman endorsement, is unparalleled in any other religion in the world.  

Prompt: What issues does this raise in light of the global nature of Christianity today? 

 Christianity is no longer directly hooked to the governments of most nations, although this is a fairly recent historical event. Because Christianity is no longer tied so closely to the rigid legal codification necessary for stable government, there is an opportunity for Christianity to release its own rigidity without sacrificing immutability.  Each of the early Gospel writers changed the story details of Jesus to better explain and relate the concepts of Messiah to their audiences but the underlying truth and sameness remained.  In the modern world, Christianity has for the first time in two thousand years the opportunity to revisit these practices. As religion and society move further apart, Christianity must adapt and remain relevant to the lives of Christians or it will fall away as so many other religions have.  There is a great tension in this effort, between preserving the identity and tradition of Christianity with the relevance and acceptance of modern life.   The fracturing of Christianity into many sects may actually make this an easier process- after all, if Christianity's ideals can survive multiple schisms it can surely survive a few more ideological shifts to help transition it back into the personal societies of citizens, rather than in their civic ones.  

Prompt: How does learning new historical information affect faith? 

 In some cases, new historical information is difficult to reconcile with faith because it challenges (typically fundamental or literalist) ideas and conceptions about the tenants of a faith. For example, finding evidence that supports Jesus lived and worked in a bustling urban area with a fair amount savoir-faire contrasts with literalist readings that Jesus was a poor, humble carpenter who surprised Temple leadership with his knowledge.   Archaeological evidence confirming or debunking the Noah story and the Arc, or the exodus from Egypt, or even the burial location of Jesus, could all potentially destabilize a personal concept and relationship with faith. It is important to keep this in perspective, however.  Lots of other, non-historical elements cause the same disruption or faith crises to some individuals- just consider how many people called the book The DaVinci Code
 heretical because it suggested that Jesus was married and had children, or how many Christians condemn Harry Potter for teaching witchcraft and devil worship.  Just as historical findings may challenge previous conceptions of a faith, they may also help strengthen or deepen an understanding of a faith. 

We must also remember that faith is highly personal.  Religions form the canon and the community in which a faithful person finds like-minded individuals, teaching, and comfort- but the faith belongs to a person. How much a historical finding challenges or strengthens faith depends on how the recipient of the knowledge chooses to allow the information and faith to intermingle.  

No comments:

Post a Comment