Kate Cooper has written an interesting article in Journal of Early Christian Studies examining the shift in church polity from the third to fourth century.† Her thesis is that as the Roman government operated within a framework of landowners operating for their mutual benefit, so similarly the universal church took up this characteristic as they transitioned from "private power to corporate institutional policy."(327) Landowners were considered worthy of heeding by virtue of their business acumen and life experience, and the church found the pattern useful for the establishment of bishops over the churches in a diocese in order to maintain order and interact in a corporate way with the Roman government. Later, as the power of Rome faded, the authority of the bishops came to the fore within the context of both church and state.
The comparison is not without merit. Rome was first established as a republic with a senate as the governing body. Mutual cooperation would be required in order for the system to be maintained. The church acted similarly as evidenced by the apostles and later writers though the basis of their union was entirely different. Cooper quotes Cyprian's On Unity of the Church as the best example of the collegiate nature of church governance in the mid-third century. We also can follow Rome and the Church taking similar steps in moving from a decentralized to a centralized authority structure as both internal and external affairs needed action and power was given to a smaller and smaller sphere of governors. This might be directly related to Constantine's legalization of Christianity.
† Kate Cooper, "Christianity, Private Power, and the Law from Decius to Constantine: The Minimalist View," JECS 19:3 (2011), 327–343.
The comparison is not without merit. Rome was first established as a republic with a senate as the governing body. Mutual cooperation would be required in order for the system to be maintained. The church acted similarly as evidenced by the apostles and later writers though the basis of their union was entirely different. Cooper quotes Cyprian's On Unity of the Church as the best example of the collegiate nature of church governance in the mid-third century. We also can follow Rome and the Church taking similar steps in moving from a decentralized to a centralized authority structure as both internal and external affairs needed action and power was given to a smaller and smaller sphere of governors. This might be directly related to Constantine's legalization of Christianity.
But the imperial sanction certainly made a difference to the bishop’s power already from the early fourth century, and across the fourth century it became increasingly important to cultivate good standing with the imperially recognized bishop of one’s city in order to enjoy the privileges of conformity with the state religion. (343)I disagree with Ms. Cooper's thrust that Roman society was a lead factor or primary example for church structure. Scripture itself identifies the impetus—apostolic doctrine (1 Tim 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9). However, the research does raise a question: How much does culture affect the church? Plenty. But this does not mean we stop walking in the good works that God has given us (Eph 2:10). Neither you nor I will build the church. Jesus builds the church. We are called to trust him and work out what God done and given (Phil 2:12-13).
† Kate Cooper, "Christianity, Private Power, and the Law from Decius to Constantine: The Minimalist View," JECS 19:3 (2011), 327–343.
2 comments:
You have to admit that what became the Romanist church developed its governing system by copying the Roman empire. And when the Empire fell, the organization was in place for the church to take over the empire as its own.
And none of this was what the original Christian Church intended to be the way of its organization. Unfortunately, too much of the Church today still follows the organizational structures Rome started, so that most of our protestant churches still operate with a "priest" as the leader of the assembly rather than a body of elders leading it.
I agree with you. The author was writing from the idea that governance of was established based almost solely on the culture as a pragmatic action, rather than seeing scripture as the basis which was later wrongly influenced.
Post a Comment