Five Factors which Changed Church History

December 4, 2014 by Ben Witherington 6 Comments

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/bibleandculture/2014/12/04/five-factors-whichchanged-church-history/

Scholars have often debated why it is that the church of Constantines period
looks so very different in various respects from the earliest church. What were
the factors which led to the change or transformation of the early Christian
movement, so that by the time we get to Constantine and thereafter the roles of
men and women in the church have changed, and indeed the church becomes
much more like an OT institution than one like what we find in the letters in the
NT itself? While it would be possible to mention many factors which led to
significant changes in the church, it is possible to isolate five major ones.
Firstly, there is the obvious fact that the church became increasingly and
overwhelmingly an entity populated by Gentiles. Yes, there were Jewish Christians
still in the broad stream of the Christian movement well into the early Middle
Ages, but their numbers gradually dwindled, one might almost say withered, in
the heat of rising anti-Semitism in the church. Lets be clear that already in the
first century A.D. we have clear evidence that Romans showed anti-Semitic
tendencies of various sorts, and Jews were often ridiculed in the Roman writings
of Juvenal and others. As the church became increasingly Gentile in character,
this attitude carried over into the church, and grew like a cancer within the
church. Even church fathers like Chrysostom, who otherwise had many virtues,
reflected this strong rising tide, and tendency to blame Jews for a lot of things
not least for the death of Jesus. Obviously, the earliest followers of Jesus were all
Jews Peter, James, John, Paul and so on. By the time we get to Constantine in
the fourth century just the opposite is the case. And with this sea change, came
the rising tide of anti-Semitism.
Secondly, there is the loss of what I will call horizontal eschatology, which is
replaced by, at least by emphasis if not in toto, by a vertical eschatology. What I
mean by this is that after several of the prophetic and eschatological movements
in 2nd century Christianity, the vibrant sense of the possible imminent return of
Christ was lost. It was not as if the church abandoned a belief in the Second
Coming of Christ, but it ceased to be a guiding hermeneutic which led folk to sit
lightly with the institutions of this world governments, marriage, economic
institutions (including slavery), and so on. This was in turn replaced by a focus on
dying and going to heaven. Now this change is not really very surprising in an
increasingly Gentile Church because the Greco-Roman world associated afterlife
with something that happened in another world, the Underworld, or the fields of
Elysium in a few cases. The Greco-Roman world did not believe in resurrection of
the dead, nor other eschatological ideas like the return of a savior figure to
transform space and time.

Thirdly, along with these two changes came the resurgence of patriarchy, not only
as the model for normal family life, but also as the hierarchial structure that
would dominate church life as well. Whereas, in the first and second centuries we
see efforts to change patriarchy within the physical family structure, and to affirm
that roles in the church should be determined by calling and gifting and not by
gender, already in the second century in various contexts women were
increasingly being prevented from playing important roles in the church, and they
eventually heard the cry get thee to a nunnery, so that they could only exercise
leadership roles in relationship to other women. This stands in contrast to what
we find in the NT where we have women teachers, preachers, deacons,
prophetesses, and even an apostle (Junia), and we continue to see some
evidence of this in the second century (see the Acts of Paul and Thecla). But we
should not talk about this development without turning now to the fourth one
the arising of strong asceticism.
Fourthly, whatever the sociological roots of the rise of asceticism as an ideal for
those wanting to be truly holy, truly sanctified, the theological roots can be traced
to a defective theology of the goodness of human sexuality, and human sexual
expression. In part this reflects the loss of a theology of creation which affirms
the goodness of being male and female, the goodness of the one flesh union they
can share, and the importance of the creation order mandate be fruitful and
multiply. When the ascetical and even Gnostic tendencies reared their ugly heads
in church history, suggesting that after all matter/physicality/physical expressions
like intercourse are tainted whereas only spirit is good, we are off to the races
with a belief that sex is an unholy activity, a necessary evil at best, and marriage
in the main is just a remedy for concupiscence. None of this comports with the
Biblical theology of creation and of family and of the joys of parenting. Even when
the latter was affirmed as a limited good, it was seen as a less holy calling than
being a eunuch for the Lord, remaining celibate for the sake of the kingdom.
Fifthly, the last factor may seem an odd development in light of the loss of a
positive OT theology of creation, but it is nonetheless a real one. I am referring to
the hermeneutical move that led to the reinterpreting of NT ministry and roles
and holy days in light of OT institutions. Whereas, in the first century church
there were no priests, except Christ the heavenly high priest and the priesthood
of all believers, by the time we get to the medieval church ministers have become
a class of priests, and this, based on Leviticus, meant males only. There was
furthermore the reinterpretation of the Lords Supper as in itself a sacrifice of the
mass, the reinterpretation of churches as temples, the reinterpretation of the
Lords day as the Sabbath, and so on. This OT hermeneutic, applied to NT
institutions and practices was to guide both the Catholic and the Orthodox
traditions from the early Middle Ages until now! Even now. But frankly, this whole
approach bears little resemblance to what happened in house churches in the first
century A.D. where the only sacrifices were those of self (Rom. 12.1-2) and of
praise (see Heb. 13).
Let me be clear that it is historically inaccurate to blame Constantine for these
changes. Patriarchy, loss of horizontal eschatology, the dominance of Gentiles in
the church coupled with the rise of anti-Semitism, the rise of asceticism, and the

OT hermeneutic had already changed the early Christian movement from a

movement to a religion like many another Greco-Roman religion, the heart of
which was priests, temples, and sacrifices. Constantine simply allowed the
underground church to be an above ground legitimate enterprise. He did not
determine its character, which had already been largely formed.
None of this, and I do mean none of this, was good news for women and their
roles in the church, unless they were content to be involved in the growing
monastic movement. What is clear is that the radical tendencies in earliest
Christianity, including the leveling effect of pronouncements like Gal. 3.28, had
been sublimated, denied, buried, reinterpreted as a part of the resurgency of
patriarchy in the Christian movement and the rise of a two track model of
holiness (there are the saints who are uber-holy, not least because they dont
engage in sexual activities, and then there are the plain old ordinary Christians
a distinction the NT knows nothing of).
Of course there are many more factors we could list to provide an explanation for
why the fourth century church looked so different from the first century church,
but these, in my view are the most obvious and salient factors. And yet there was
hope because with the canonization of the Bible, including a specific 27 book NT
canon, there was enshrined a revolutionary potential involving both women and
men, that like a ticking time bomb might explode at any time, and lead to one
church reformation after another, after another, as the church realized that it had
strayed far from the original vision of Christ and his apostles.