Did the Church expand because of Roman weakness?

[Epictetus]

The idea that Christianity caused Rome’s fall is very old – dating back to Gibbon or before. But could this view be backwards? Could Rome’s weakness have allowed the Church to expand and fill a power vacuum?

Here is a provoking passage from a book I’m currently reading:

The strains and stresses to which the empire was subject during this period were manifested in one symptom above all, the collapse of local civic life. Between the 230s and the 280s the traditional pattern of elite behaviour in the Greek cities changed radically. The members of the local aristocracy, who had both directed and derived prestige from the political and public life of their cities, slipped from prominence… But the troubled years of the third century demanded leadership even if they did not always receive it; and it is tempting to suggest that in many cities the place of the local aristocracy was taken by energetic Christian bishops… With the collapse of organised civic politics… [an] opportunity for leadership was to be found within the Church. As the strength of this Christian leadership became plain, the number of converts would have increased dramatically. The culmination of this process was to come, in Anatolia at least, in the fourth century, when the bishops of Gregory of Nyssa’s day, above all Basil of Caesareia, wielded temporal power on a grand scale.

Mitchell; Anatolia: Land, Men, and Gods in Asia Minor, Vol II

[M. Demetrius]

Isn't it possible that there is no causative connection between the two? If you mean the Church as a governmental organization, I guess there would be a need for that, but if simply the coincidental known causes for the decline of Roman power and the simultaneous spread of Christianity as a spiritual force, then there's no need for the one to be unduly influenced by the other.

In its pure form, Christianity isn't a political system. It became so for quite a while, as we see in medieval Europe, but there's little in the Bible that says Christians should seize control of governmental offices: instead it says that we should pray for righteous leaders, and pray that Christians would be left alone to pursue their lives in peace, and to spread the message without interference from governmental agencies.

[Nathan Ross]

But the troubled years of the third century demanded leadership even if they did not always receive it; and it is tempting to suggest that in many cities the place of the local aristocracy was taken by energetic Christian bishops…

Has any study been made of the social background of the early Christian hierarchy? From what I remember of reading assorted martyr stories and anti-christian diatribes several years ago, the church in even the late third century was still a very grassroots affair - doubtless wealthy in the cities of the east, but not necessarily socially prestigious. Still a lot of stigma attached to a 'religion for women and slaves', as I believe somebody called it.

It would seem likely that, in times of crisis, a religion based around salvation and damnation (again, not too sure about the state of christian eschatology in this period!) would prove attractive. That the church grew during the third century is beyond doubt. But to draw from this that it supplanted the traditional social elites is maybe too much of an extension.

If you look at other periods in history for comparison (the situation in the Holy Roman Empire during the reformation, for example, or in the middle east in the last couple of decades), I think you find that traditional power elites will often try to work with radical or populist religious groups, whilst at the same time keeping them at arm's length, in order to try and preserve the status quo. In the Roman case, the popular religion was then coopted by the state, whereupon I'm sure a lot of elite figures were only too glad to enter the hierarchy and pretend they'd been there all along!

Interesting subject anyway...

- Nathan

[Epictetus]

Yes, certainly there might be no causation between the two. I’ve never heard of this theory, though, so I think it is interesting. One point: the book is exclusively about Roman rule in Asia Minor, and makes no claims about the Empire as a whole. I’ll try to summarise his reasoning as I understand it.

The Greek East was largely developed when it became part of the Empire, and this administrative structure was left mostly intact. Wealthy and ambitious men often joined the local civic structure – serving as high priests (especially in the imperial cult) or local magistrates. Only a relative few joined the imperial administrative structure in the first several centuries of Roman rule.

During the crisis of the third century this local administrative structure collapsed. Epigraphic evidence, such as monuments commemorating distributions of grain and oil, festivals or new public buildings practically disappeared. Prominent men sometimes fled to their country estates to escape turmoil (and their mandatory civic duties), or they found a new career path in an expanded imperial bureaucracy. The local civic structure faltered.

Evidence suddenly appears that the Church began to undertake some activities formerly reserved for local authorities. Letters from Christian writers, which hitherto had been exclusively theological, become more politically oriented, such as about settling disputes, collecting and distributing resources, building city walls, reacting to Gothic raiders or distributing grain. Bishops sometimes wrote to the emperor on behalf of various communities or individuals, which in the past had always been done by local magistrates. In some of these cases Christian bishops cite Biblical law, not Roman law, to identify crimes and to prescribe punishment.

Even more startling, there are some indications that local and imperial authorities delegated some power, in very specific instances, to the Church in their weakness. An example is a letter requesting a bishop handle a local dispute, which by rights should have been handled by either the Roman governor in his rounds of the assize districts or by local magistrates.

Finally, there is evidence that this coincided with a sudden increase in the number of Christians. This is mostly taken from tombstones, although the author also cites contemporaries. The advance of Christianity was quite patchy and the evidence is lacking in places, so the author is cautious. However, he makes a very strong case that the number of Christians grew dramatically in Anatolia during this period.

Unfortunately, trying to prove a causal relationship between the collapse of civic government, the rise of the Church as a public administrative entity and the increase in the number of Christians was not high on Mitchell’s agenda. The one review that I found, by Raymond Van Dam of the University of Michigan, does not pursue it either. Still, it is a fascinating idea.

[elagababbalus]

There appears to have been an increasing level of ambivalence by the ruling elite (and perhaps ordinary folks) in the polytheistic gods and a move towards both a more philosophical understanding of divinity and a intellectual shift towards monotheism eg Sol Invictus, Mithras, Jesus during the 2nd to 3rd century.

The intellectual shift in favour of monotheism was in turn reflective of greater levels of political authoritarianism of the later empire eg One God in Heaven one ruler on Earth to implement his will. The church and God's will would definitely have been seen as a tool to stabilise the empire and give it moral strength but it didnt work out that way.

Ammiannus does make mention of the fact that Julian lamented the fact that the Christians
provided social services which the pagan gods did not and this was part of their success. In any period of hard times belonging to a group thats going provide you with some support when you are down on your luck would be a comfort, especially given the effectiveness of the Roman patronage system for the people at the bottom was starting to break down as power shifted from the town councils towards the imperial bureaucracy and the army.

I would argue, although no doubt the view isn't universally shared that the doctrinal disputes and the fanatical intolerance of the later roman empire were significant factors in the corrosion of the political legitimacy of the state and hampered its dealings with those foreign powers having a different dogma, though no doubt the savage corruption and crippling taxation of the period were much greater factors in the disaffection of the masses.

As the legitimacy and power of the central state eroded the ruling elite managed to maintain their position in the barbarian successor states by having control of church offices. A clever way of preserving their wealth.