Mr. Ed
Be what you is not what you what you ain’t
- Location
- Central NY
The Triumph of Christianity: Religion as an Instrument of Control*
Robert L. Cleve
During the past few centuries, an enormous amount of scholarly effort and energy has been devoted to the question, ―Why and how did Christianity triumph over seemingly insurmountable opposition, to become, in the end, the only religion which was permitted to exist within the Roman Empire, and afterward its successor states?‖ After all theanalysis and debate, only four proposals to explain this extraordinary historical phenomenon seem to have merit:1 1) the ―appeal‖ of Christianity‘s promise of salvation; 2) its ―rational‖ theology; 3) the strong organization of the church hierarchy; and 4) the support and coercion of the government.Robert L. Cleve
But do all four of these reasons have equal validity? It is important to examine each of them. Many scholars give a great deal of credit for Christianity‘s success to something they call ―appeal.‖ Christianity, they say, had more appeal to the masses than did any of the other salvationist religions. During the first three centuries of our era, there existed, of course, numerous so-called ―mystery‖ cults, which offered salvation in the form of life beyond the grave. All of these cults, including Christianity, had at least one thing in common: they sought, through mystical rituals and behavior, to associate the believer with a soter, a hero or ―savior,‖ who had conquered death by having died and then returned to the realm of the living. The argument of ―appeal‖ seems to assume that some form of salvationist religion was bound to replace paganism—that is, classical humanism—and it seeks only to explain why it was Christianity and not one of the others which won the day. That assumption is, to my mind, debatable.2 However, even if we accept this premise, this explanation for the success of Christianity is not a strong one.
Put into its simplest and crudest form, this argument proposes that Christianity was more appealing and thus acquired a larger number of converts than competing religions because it was the ―right‖ religion, whereas the other religions were the ―wrong‖ ones.3 Of course scholars put this arguments into much more sophisticated clothing. They say, for example, that Christianity was superior to the other mystery cults because its founder was a historical person; because it had higher moral standards; because it incorporated from the Jews their rich tradition of religion, law, and literature; because it promised the meek that they would inherit the earth—although, of course, it must be left in the hands of the powerful and the arrogant for the foreseeable future
Furthermore, say these scholars, all other mystic cults had fatal disadvantages when compared to Christianity. Some of them, like the cult of Mithras, appealed only to men; others, like the cult of Isis, appealed mostly to women; and still other cults, like that of Cybele, required unrealistic sacrifices or changes in way of life. The priests of Cybele, for instance, castrated themselves as part of their initiation into the priesthood—quite a drastic change in lifestyle, to say the least!
But upon close examination, this whole argument of ―appeal‖ appears to be the product of narrow, ethnocentric thinking. As a matter of fact, up until the year 313, when the emperor Constantine made Christianity the ―favored‖ religion of the Roman Empire, there is little evidence that Christianity was more popular with the general population than the other salvationist cults. Of course Christianity seems emotionally more appealing
to us today than any of its early competitors, about which we actually know very little except what the Christian writers, who were their enemies, have told us.
The truth is, many important aspects of these cults were, in one form or another, absorbed into the Christian religion.4 The example as already mentioned above, the priests of Cybele worked themselves into an emotional frenzy during their initiation into the priesthood and then castrated themselves, which seems strange to us and even a bit amusing. But what about the promise of celibacy taken by Roman Catholic priests as an important part of their initiation into the priesthood? Is this not a symbolic form of self- castration? Where did it originate? It is certainly not part of Christianity‘s Jewish heritage. In Judaism a religious leader is expected to be a family man, not celibate.
In fact, when one analyzes Christian customs and practices, one discovers nothing original in any one of them.5 Almost every individual facet of Christian belief or practice can be found in one or another (usually many) of the mystery religions, or in pagan practices far older than Christianity. An obvious example is the Christmas holiday. No one really has the slightest idea on what day Jesus was born. The celebration of his birthday on December 25th is purely the result of the successful takeover of the very popular pagan festival called the Feast of Sol Invictus, which was celebrated on that date, together with many aspects of the Festival of the Saturnalia, which was originally celebrated on December 17, but which during the late empire lasted seven days from December 17 to 21.6 The exchange of presents, the feasting with family and friends on special foods, the decorating of a Christmas tree, and many other Christmas customs are practices taken over from the pagans at one time or another during the history of Christianity. These parallels with earlier religious practices can be found throughout Christianity. Like the other great world religions, such as Islam and Buddhism, Christianity was not based on new concepts so much as on a unique reinterpretation, or recombination, of older beliefs and practices. What made Christianity different from the pagan religions was the impact that the life of the religious leader, Jesus, had upon his followers. And Christianity also shares this feature with Islam and Buddhism. These broad similarities with competing religions are, in my judgment, a telling argument against the proposition that Christianity was successful because it was more appealing, more attractive (in other words, more popular), than the other salvationist cults. In fact, the evidence being discussed here could be used to make a rational argument that Christianity had less intrinsic appeal than the pagan religions and thus was forced to absorb many elements and images from them in order to overcome this basic lack of appeal.
Of course Christianity is extremely appealing to those individuals who have already made a commitment to it, as the large store of surviving writings of the early Christian apologists attest in ample measure.7 But this does not prove that Christianity was especially appealing to the non-Christians of the period, as the writings of the opponents of early Christianity also attest. In fact, hardly any element of this argument will stand up under close objective examination. For example, the proponents of the ―appeal‖ theory for Christianity‘s success often say that large numbers of converts were brought into the church because of their fear of hell, However, the fear of eternal punishment is rarely, if ever, present in those who do not already ascribe to the basic tenets of Christianity or some other salvationist religion which shares this belief. In reality then, this fear of punishment could not have made much more of an impression on ancient pagans than it makes on modern pagans. At any rate, Christianity‘s ―appeal‖ cannot be seriously considered as a major factor in its success.
The next two reasons usually given by scholars for the triumph of Christianity can be treated much more briefly. Writers who contend that Christianity‘s so-called ―rational‖ theology brought it success in the marketplace of ideas, so to speak, overlook the fact that this rationalization of Christian theology is itself an intrusion of pagan humanism into the mysticism of early Christianity, produced by Christianity‘s efforts to compete with paganism on its own terms. Actually, the most important and fundamental aspects of Christian theology—and this is true with any religion—are not rational at all and must be accepted on faith alone. No one has ever discovered a new religion through scientificresearch. The development of the ―rational‖ framework for the irrational principles of Christianity took place over a period of many centuries, and indeed is still in the process of development today; that is the function of theologians. The rationalization of Christian theology was really a reaction to, or a compromise with, Greek culture. When early Christianity came into contact with the Greeks, they naturally began to analyze Christian beliefs by utilizing the rational principles of their own philosophy. In defense, the church fathers began to employ these same rational modes of thought to explain and expound their own doctrine.9 Therefore, this so-called rational theology was, in the final analysis, a compromise between Christian mysticism and Greek philosophic humanism rather than a triumph of Christian rationalism over pagan superstition, and it is not an argument for the strength and popularity of Christianity itself, especially among the masses of ―common‖ people for whom philosophy holds little attraction, anyway?
The relationship between Christianity on Greek culture was very much a two-way street: each changed the other in fundamental ways through cultural interpenetration. At any rate, rationalism as a reason for the triumph of Christianity among the masses does not seem to me to be persuasive. How often does the rational argument carry the day in matters of religion anyway? Early Christians, as well as modern ones, realized this and in fact very little stress was ever placed on the rational aspects of Christianity when seeking new converts. Besides, what percentage of the population of the empire during the third and fourth centuries was educated and literate enough to participate in this kind of rational debate concerning religion? Thus the rationalism of Christianity cannot be an important factor in its triumph over paganism.
However, the third reason on the list, Christianity‘s superior organization, does seem to have some merit. If the rational framework for its theology is the Greek contribution to Christianity, the organizational and administrative techniques of the church were certainly the major contributions of the Romans. During the first three or four centuries of its existence, the church organized itself on the model of the Roman Empire. It developed a hierarchy of deacons, priests, and bishops, in imitation of the imperial organization of procurators, legates, and proconsuls. In fact, the church became a kind of state itself, a state within the state. All of this was made possible, of course, by the umbrella of the Pax Romana, which allowed the free movement of people and ideas throughout the Mediterranean basin and did not normally interfere in purely local affairs.There is no need here to go into the details of the church hierarchy and bureaucracy, but it cannot be denied that its complex organization gave the church the strength, resilience, and endurance that allowed it not only to survive some very serious defeats and setbacks, which might otherwise have destroyed it, but also enabled it to take quick and tenacious advantage of its victories. Yet I cannot accept the proposition that this strong church organization could in itself account for Christianity‘s ultimate and totaltriumph over paganism; it could only assure its survival as a minority religion. Something more was necessary.
And so, finally, we come to the fourth reason on the list: government support and coercion, which, in my judgment, is the single most important reason for the triumph of Christianity. Left to their own inclinations, it is inconceivable that the entire population of a complex, heterogeneous civilization would ever willingly and spontaneously adopt a single religion, especially one fundamentally at odds with the values of the vast majority of its members, any more than they would all march out and join a single political party of their own volition. The individualistic nature of human beings is simply too diverse. Such an event requires coercion; it requires some form of political and social force. This fundamental fact is usually ignored by both historians and theologians.
In the year 313, when Constantine made Christianity the ―favored‖ religion of the Roman Empire, it has been estimated that anywhere from three to seven percent of the population was Christian—and this was after almost three centuries of intense missionary effort by the Christians.11 The overwhelming majority of the people were still very much anti-Christian and were, in fact, still willing to enthusiastically participate in persecution, because Christians were still perceived by the pagans to be a threat to society in general and to pagan values and the pagan way of life. I cannot accept the proposition that Christianity in the early fourth century had become so irresistibly popular that it forced the emperor of the Roman Empire to adopt it as the most-favored religion of the state. Although no convincing evidence to support this thesis has ever been put forward, most historians have accepted this position without question. But in reality, it is extremely improbable that Christianity, or any other of the salvationist religions for that matter, would ever have become the universal faith of the Roman Empire without active government support and coercion.
But on the other hand, five percent of the population is not an insignificant figure when it comes to gaining control of the government and perpetrating a cultural and political revolution. In our own era, the Bolsheviks, for example, seized control of the Russian government and brought about a fundamental cultural, political, and economic revolution in that society, even though less than three percent of the population were members of that group. If you accept the premise—and almost all historians do—that an individual can influence history, then it follows that even a small group of very dedicated and highly organized individuals can have an infinitely stronger influence. And if that small group gains control of the power structure of society, as the Christians did after 313, or as the communists did in 1917, its influence upon the direction of history can be decisive. In such a situation, the ―will of the majority‖ becomes almost irrelevant.
Throughout its subsequent history, Christianity has managed to spread, with rare exceptions, only by first converting the rulers of nations, after which the conversion of the people was a simple matter. In no case have Christian missionary efforts been successful until the ruling class accepted Christianity (or was replaced by another ruling class which was already Christian) and exerted support and coercion to the conversion of the masses.
Therefore, I believe that the Christian revolution was engineered from above, not from below, as the early Christian writers and many modern scholars would have us believe.
But if my contention is true, what were Constantine‘s motives? Why would he embrace an obscure religion that was practiced by less than seven percent of the population, a religion, moreover, that was despised and held in contempt by the vast majority of the people and that seemed and that seemed determined to dismantle the very culture and even the state he was trying to rule? What did Constantine possibly have to gain from such a move ?
Of course, the answer of the Christian writers, such as Eusebius, was that Constantine underwent a religious conversion, which caused him to become the champion of the Christian religion: that his actions were the ―will of God.‖ Some writers have even claimed that this event is simply another piece of evidence that God controls human destiny and the direction of history. It is all a divine plan. To many historians this is a valid view of history, but since I cannot speak for God, I must leave the discussion of these arguments to others.
However, there are rational, historical reasons which explain this important event. Remember that Constantine faced a very serious political problem: how to unite under his sole rule an empire that had become very divided and disorganized. The reasons that he chose Christianity to aid him in this effort are not really so mysterious if viewed in this context. After all, monotheism seemed much more compatible with the kind of absolute monarchy that Constantine was trying to establish than did polytheism: one supreme, all- powerful god in heaven; one supreme, all-powerful emperor on earth, acting as God‘s viceroy. In the world of the Mediterranean and the Near East, the political and social structure here on earth had always been perceived as a kind of reflection of the more perfect reality of heaven. The ancient Mesopotamians and Egyptians had believed this; Plato had believed it; and certainly the Christians believed that the community of men here on earth should at least attempt to pattern its structure and its life as nearly as possible after the greater reality of heaven.
Furthermore, it was obvious to most people in the fourth century, and certainly to Constantine, that the old façade of republican forms created by Augustus, which had supported the imperial rule for over three hundred years and had been modeled on an ideal in which the state was ruled by a group of men, just as heaven was ruled by a group of gods, had now all but disappeared and no longer held the imagination and loyalty of the empire‘s inhabitants. A new ideology, a new rationale, a new image was now required to support the monarchy, and Constantine saw in the new religion of Christianity, perhaps unconsciously, the potential for establishing that new rationale.
Also, it should be recognized that paganism was not a united, monolithic religion. Pagan cults were bound together only loosely by their devotion to ―the gods.‖ Pagans had no common organization, no common system of theology, no supreme cause to unite them into an organic form. The church, on the other hand, claimed at least to be unified; it demanded the total and exclusive allegiance of all its members. Its leaders exercised total control over the life and behavior of their ―flock.‖ If this unity, organization, and control could be placed in the service of the state, it could be a powerful instrument for the support of an authoritarian ruler of the type that envisioned. Christianity, in fact, had the potential to provide totalitarian control over both the public and the private lives of the empire‘s inhabitants. And the Church stood ready to give the ruler control of this power in exchange for support and protection. Thus, at this point the goals and ideals of Constantine (and indeed the ruling class) and the Church meshed together very closely.
Constantine also had powerful economic motives for embracing Christianity. By making it the favored religion of the state and placing himself at its head he would the right, indeed he would now have a divine mission to destroy the pagan religion. This, in turn, gave him and his supporters the opportunity to pilfer and pillage the pagan temples and shrines which contained the treasures built up over many centuries. As early as 314, Constantine wrote to the Synod of Arles: ―The inconceivable goodness of our God forbids that mankind should continue to wander in the dark.‘" Nothing can make a religious conversion as ardent and sincere as the passion of self-interest. In short, he conceived of Christianity as a political and religious instrument (they were both the same in the context of the ancient world) by which he could unite the diverse elements of the empire under the rule of one all-powerful emperor.
History has proven that Constantine was correct in this evaluation of the nature of Christianity. While his policy of using the new religion to support his throne did not hold the entire empire together indefinitely, the eastern half of the Roman Empire, which modern historians call the Byzantine Empire, continued to exist and often to prosper under Christian emperors until 1453, a period of over one thousand years. Christianity remained the firm ally of authoritarian monarchy everywhere until very recent times. Some would say that it still exhibits evidence that it would again champion authoritarian rule if given an opportunity.
It's a long article and I apologize but I thought it was interesting reading so I posted it.
Mr. Ed
