THE FOURTH CENTURY

A.  THE DIVIDING OF EAST AND WEST AND SUBSEQUENT LEADERSHIP

Constantine claims that in response to a divinely granted dream he was to move the capital of the Empire from Rome to Byzantium (later renamed to Constantinople then Istanbul). [1] Divinely inspired or not, Byzantium, at the mouth of the Bosphorus River, represented a major trade junction for an Empire expanding eastward. Prior to Constantine taking control of the entire Empire, there was an east-west division within the Empire with each division having its own Caesar. When Constantine took control of the entire, he went from being a Caesar, to being Caesar Augustus (Supreme Emperor).

(i)      THE NEW CAPITAL

The move of the capital to Byzantium also created a natural east-west division within the Church. Rome’s historic centrality, and its association with Peter and Paul, lent great weight to the position of the Bishop of Rome. But the new capital gave rise to the Bishop of Constantinople being considered by most in the east, as the most influential Bishop within the Church. By the year 590, the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople were the only bishops living in cities of world significance. [2]

It’s worth considering that this division within the Church, which eventually became a formal division, was not the first Church division. (Some believe that when the Church has strong leadership it is guarded against disunity. Historically, the opposite is true. Strong leaders with strong personalities have often polarised the Church.) Constantine wanted the Church to be a unifying factor throughout the Empire. Instead he found that the Church itself was divided, firstly over the Donatist crisis, then the Arian controversy. [3] Yet both of these potentially divisive issues, did not divide the Church so thoroughly and effectively as did his move of the capital to Byzantium.

The tension between the bishops of the Latin, west, part of the empire (Rome), and the Greek, east, part of the empire (Constantinople), came to a head in 1054 when they both excommunicated each other. The Latin Church became the Roman Catholic Church, while the Eastern Church became the Orthodox Church. [4] By this stage the Bishop of Rome was well and truly referred to as the Pope (Pontifex Maximus), while the Bishop of Constantinople was known as a Patriarch. The factors involved in complicating the relationship between Eastern Orthodox and Western Roman Churches are outside the parameters of this disquisition.

The development of Church leadership through this period was marked by political struggles both internally and with the State, and a general decline in godly spirituality. A very hierarchal leadership structure had developed within the Church, presumably modelled on the structure of the Empire.

 

(ii)     LEADING FIGURES

Of the Post-Nicene Fathers, there were several key leaders who made a godly contribution to the Church’s leadership. Many of these leaders committed themselves to the study of the Scriptures. Those of the Eastern Church are referred to as belonging to the Alexandrian and Antiochene schools of interpretation.

John the Chrysostomos (golden mouthed c.350-407) is generally referred to as simply Chrysostom. He was baptised in 367; ordained a deacon in 381; ordained a priest in 386; then ordained the Bishop of Constantinople. Prior to his ordinations he lived as a monk in the mountains. After his ordination as a Bishop (Patriarch) he met opposition from the State due to his forthright preaching against corruption both in the Church and politics. He died being persecuted while being exiled. [5]

Theodore (350-428) became bishop of Mopsuestia, Cilicia, in 392. [6] He has been called the prince of the ancient exegetes. [7] This is because of his extensive writing of Bible commentaries with an exegetical approach which placed an emphasis upon historical context, grammar, and immediate context. He refuted much of the popular allegorical extremism. Some of his theology was controversial. For example he could not seem to grasp the compatibility of Christ’s dual natures (God and man), and taught that Christ’s humanity was absorbed by His divine nature.

Eusebius (c. 265 -339) is often referred to as the Father of Church History. [8] Eusebius was the bishop of Palestinian Caesarea, and played an important role in the Arian Controversy. He soon befriended Emperor Constantine and sought to reconcile the opposing parties in the Arian Controversy since Constantine was eager to have a united Empire and a united Church. Eusebius wanted to make concessions to Arius, but eventually Athanasius was able to sway the Council. Eusebius’ greatest contribution to the Church, though, has been his recording of Church history from the time of the original apostles to his day. He regarded Constantine’s conversion as a divine act ensuring the spread of Christianity. [9]

 

In the West...

Jerome (347-419) was born near Aquileia, studied in Rome, and lived out his life in Bethlehem. His relationship with the local Greek church was often strained by his open criticism of them. [10] He was a staunch defender of the emerging Roman Catholic church with its beliefs in the perpetual virginity of Mary, priestly celibacy, and saint adoration. He became the secretary to Damasus, the Bishop of Rome, in 382, who suggested to him that he make a new translation of the Bible into Latin.  He is most well known for this translation, called the Vulgate. He lived for 35 years in Bethlehem as an ascetic monk, and championed this lifestyle in his later writings. [11]

 

Ambrose (340-397) commenced his working life as a political administrator. He rose to the position of Imperial Governor of the area around the city of Milan. When the Bishop of Milan died, the people of the city wanted Ambrose to take that position. He did. He renounced his political office, gave his money to the poor, and began a study of the Scriptures and theology. He became a fearless Bishop, and a bold preacher (Augustine was converted under his ministry). He introduced congregational singing of hymns and antiphonal psalmody into the Western Church. [12]

Augustine (354-430) was born in Algeria. His mother, Monica, was a devout Christian, tried to influence Augustine into Christianity to no avail. At his own admission he committed every sin he could throughout his early life (based on his book: Confessions). He embraced a philosophy of Dualism (Manichaeism) where he viewed the world as subject to two equally opposing forces. In 383 he left for Rome with his mistress and son to embark on a teaching career (he was to teach rhetoric). This proved financially unviable, so he moved to Milan. By this time he had too many unanswered questions about the universe for his Dualistic philosophy to answer. He befriended the Bishop of Milan, Ambrose, who answered his questions and led him to faith in Christ.

Let us behave decently, as in the daytime, not in orgies and drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and debauchery, not in dissension and jealousy. Rather, clothe yourselves with the Lord Jesus Christ, and do not think about how to gratify the desires of the sinful nature.

(Romans 13:14  NIV)

It was the above Scripture that arrested Augustine after a stint of scepticism following his conversion. [13] He returned to North Africa, after separating from his mistress, with his son who died shortly after their return there. He devoted himself to writing. He was ordained a priest in 391, and then made the Bishop of Hippo Regius in 395. He is generally regarded by both Protestants and Roman Catholics as one of the greatest apologists of the Church.

 

These men are considered the Fathers of the Church. Can their leadership roles in the Church constitute a continuation of the Apostolic Structure of leadership with which the Church was established? In some cases it appears so. We must consider that the Church was founded with a need to evangelise, but after the conversion of Constantine this urgency diminished and was replaced with an urgency to defend sound doctrine against the Church’s slide into paganistic tendencies. This was most certainly an apostolic function, although not entirely, and it was mostly what these men were involved with. The other factor of apostolic similarity was the oversight and governing of the Church. Of necessity the Church required greater organisation and depth of leadership due to its vast size. These men appeared to have fulfilled that as well.

 

B. THE INCREASING EMPHASIS UPON TEMPORAL RATHER THAN SPIRITUAL LEADERSHIP

Throughout the Middle Ages, Popes and Emperors battled over who was the true ruler of the Roman Empire. The term Holy Roman Empire was developed to firmly position as the Pope as the rightful ruler of the Empire. The term temporal was employed to describe the military ruler of the Empire, as opposed to the Pope’s spiritual rulership of the Empire.

The roots of this struggle can again be largely attributed to the moving of the Empire’s capital to Byzantium. Professor Cairns says that from 330 AD the Bishop of Rome was the single strongest individual there for great periods of time and that the people there looked to him for temporal as well as spiritual leadership. [14] This was virtually guaranteed as so, when in 410 Rome was sacked by Alaric but saved from the torch by the clever diplomacy of the Bishop of Rome.

 

(i)      THE FIRST MEDIEVAL POPE

Depending on your outlook of history, the approximate years between 500 and 1000 were either the Dark Ages or the Golden Age. Protestant historians consider this period the Middle or Dark Ages, while the Roman Catholic church has labelled it as the Golden Age. [15] It is generally marked by the appointment of Gregory I as the Pope in 590.

What marks Gregory the Great’s appointment as a turning point in world history, let alone Church history, was that he firmly established the supremacy and power of the Bishop of Rome, over the other bishops, expanded the realm of the Roman Church to Britain, greatly increased the wealth of papacy possessions, organised a highly respected army to defeat the enemies of Rome, and developed a chant which became known as the Gregorian Chant. [16]

It was Gregory the Great who laid a foundation for success popes to introduce spurious doctrines and practices into the Church. Among his doctrines were: [17]

·       Salvation based on grace and the merits of man

·       The idea of purgatory as a place where souls would be purified prior to their entrance to heaven

·       Church tradition was equal in authority to the Bible

·       The Mass as a re-sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood

·       The invocation of the saints in order to gain their aid

·       And, the sacramental hierarchical system of the institutionalised Church (sacerdotalism).

 

Apart from these Biblical aberrations, he squarely placed the Church in the political arena of the world. Over the proceeding centuries the Roman Church was challenged by various military threats, but none were so great as the threat posed by Islam. Slavs, Magyars, and Mongols also threatened the Eastern Church. [18] All of these factors played a role in causing the Church to generally become corrupted both in its authority and doctrine. This would inevitably give rise to the Reformation.