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