Rome, Religion, and Power

[barnhart]

I think if we are talking about the context of Ancient Rome (the subject of this thread) then the Romans were not at all concerned with religious leaders weighing in on various social issues: poverty, vice, healing the sick, feeding the poor, etc. All of which can take a political slant in the modern world. Their idea of politics was about seizing power, insurrection, revolting against the empire, and so forth. None of which Jesus or early Christians engaged in. But other religious leaders across the empire most certainly did. Often stirring up rebellion, leading armies into battle, and that sort of thing.

And yet those simple observances around poverty and charity were threatening to Rome whether or not it was intended. After Constantine came an emperor known as Julian the apostate because he wanted to restore the manly vigor of Rome by returning to pagan worship. He noted the church increased it's influence by "caring not only for their own poor, but ours as well." To combat this he instituted a charity network flowing through pagan temples.

I contest your gnostic division between secular and sacred when you claim Jesus was "not political". I think what you should say is Jesus had no interest in weilding political power because he didn't need it and because it flows contrary to the nature of God with its reliance on coercion and force. This should be instructive to his followers in all ages.

[Ken]

I think if we are talking about the context of Ancient Rome (the subject of this thread) then the Romans were not at all concerned with religious leaders weighing in on various social issues: poverty, vice, healing the sick, feeding the poor, etc. All of which can take a political slant in the modern world. Their idea of politics was about seizing power, insurrection, revolting against the empire, and so forth. None of which Jesus or early Christians engaged in. But other religious leaders across the empire most certainly did. Often stirring up rebellion, leading armies into battle, and that sort of thing.

And yet those simple observances around poverty and charity were threatening to Rome whether or not it was intended. After Constantine came an emperor known as Julian the apostate because he wanted to restore the manly vigor of Rome by returning to pagan worship. He noted the church increased it's influence by "caring not only for their own poor, but ours as well." To combat this he instituted a charity network flowing through pagan temples.

I contest your gnostic division between secular and sacred when you claim Jesus was "not political". I think what you should say is Jesus had no interest in weilding political power because he didn't need it and because it flows contrary to the nature of God with its reliance on coercion and force. This should be instructive to his followers in all ages.

Christians did not invent charity or care for the poor. In fact one of the biggest social programs in the ancient world was the Roman curra annonae or “grain dole” that fed the masses of Rome.

Nor did it take long for institutional Christianity to support the stratified social order. And the institutional church throughout history has largely stood in opposition to social movements that challenged social stratification

[Szdfan]

I remember years ago, Dan Z posted that voting was the firewall between someone being political and apolitical. With all respect to Dan, I don't believe that. I often think that politics is a bit like lust -- if you commit politics in your heart, you're still political even if you don't vote. Politics is much broader than "official" participation.

That's why I think Ken's definition of politics is way too limited. It focuses completely on "official power" as exercised by kings or governments or armies and entirely ignores all the "unofficial" ways that politics actually works in society. Politics isn't just the government -- it's also all the informal ways that power and authority are negotiated in society, which includes public witness and community action. Art and literature, for example, are frequently political, even if they are not directly tied to government.

This framing creates two separate lanes: politics is public and official, faith is private. But the lines between the two are blurry and don't describe how people actually behave. In practice, people don't live like their politics and faith are separate. When churches express “social concerns” and “witness truth to power,” they are still acting politically even if they don’t threaten the power structure directly.

I'm not saying that there's no separation between politics and faith. What I am saying is that the lines between the two is a lot blurrier than people pretend they are and these sharp divisions seem to me to be more about comfort levels than describing what actually happens.

Martin Luther King did not lead a secular political movement from the pulpit. As Charles Marsh argues in The Beloved Community, King led a movement that was both religious and political. King espoused a theological vision whose public discipleship drew its concepts of justice and dignity from Scripture and publicly confronted worldly power with nonviolence. King's faith wasn't incidental, it was the engine that drove his politics. Separating the two into separate spheres, flattens both King's politics and his theology.

[Szdfan]

I think if we are talking about the context of Ancient Rome (the subject of this thread) then the Romans were not at all concerned with religious leaders weighing in on various social issues: poverty, vice, healing the sick, feeding the poor, etc. All of which can take a political slant in the modern world. Their idea of politics was about seizing power, insurrection, revolting against the empire, and so forth. None of which Jesus or early Christians engaged in. But other religious leaders across the empire most certainly did. Often stirring up rebellion, leading armies into battle, and that sort of thing.

And yet those simple observances around poverty and charity were threatening to Rome whether or not it was intended. After Constantine came an emperor known as Julian the apostate because he wanted to restore the manly vigor of Rome by returning to pagan worship. He noted the church increased it's influence by "caring not only for their own poor, but ours as well." To combat this he instituted a charity network flowing through pagan temples.

I contest your gnostic division between secular and sacred when you claim Jesus was "not political". I think what you should say is Jesus had no interest in weilding political power because he didn't need it and because it flows contrary to the nature of God with its reliance on coercion and force. This should be instructive to his followers in all ages.

Christians did not invent charity or care for the poor. In fact one of the biggest social programs in the ancient world was the Roman curra annonae or “grain dole” that fed the masses of Rome.

Nor did it take long for institutional Christianity to support the stratified social order. And the institutional church throughout history has largely stood in opposition to social movements that challenged social stratification

Barnhart isn’t saying that Christians invented charity. He’s describing how Christian witness through charity carried political implications in Rome, regardless of the intentions.

Ken, I feel like you keep pivoting to the sins of the marriage between Church and State without dealing with the moral and theological question some of us are asking: isn’t it possible for public Christian witness to carry political weight without seeking coercive power?

[Ken]

And yet those simple observances around poverty and charity were threatening to Rome whether or not it was intended. After Constantine came an emperor known as Julian the apostate because he wanted to restore the manly vigor of Rome by returning to pagan worship. He noted the church increased it's influence by "caring not only for their own poor, but ours as well." To combat this he instituted a charity network flowing through pagan temples.

I contest your gnostic division between secular and sacred when you claim Jesus was "not political". I think what you should say is Jesus had no interest in weilding political power because he didn't need it and because it flows contrary to the nature of God with its reliance on coercion and force. This should be instructive to his followers in all ages.

Christians did not invent charity or care for the poor. In fact one of the biggest social programs in the ancient world was the Roman curra annonae or “grain dole” that fed the masses of Rome.

Nor did it take long for institutional Christianity to support the stratified social order. And the institutional church throughout history has largely stood in opposition to social movements that challenged social stratification

Barnhart isn’t saying that Christians invented charity. He’s describing how Christian witness through charity carried political implications in Rome, regardless of the intentions.

Ken, I feel like you keep pivoting to the sins of the marriage between Church and State without dealing with the moral and theological question some of us are asking: isn’t it possible for public Christian witness to carry political weight without seeking coercive power?

No. I’m simply arguing that Jesus in AD 30 or so during the reign of Augustus and Tiberius was no threat to the Roman Empire and was not seen as such.

How Christianity and the church developed over the next two millennia doesn’t change that fact.

I’m also skeptical of the political weight of Christian witness to the state outside of the normal avenues of political power. Although that’s a different subject from the crucification. I’m not sure where a-political Christian witness has ever accomplished much in the face of a determined state. Not today when it comes to things like US policy in Gaza or immigration. And not any time in the past that I can think of. Perhaps you have other examples in mind?

[joshuabgood]

I think if we are talking about the context of Ancient Rome (the subject of this thread) then the Romans were not at all concerned with religious leaders weighing in on various social issues: poverty, vice, healing the sick, feeding the poor, etc. All of which can take a political slant in the modern world. Their idea of politics was about seizing power, insurrection, revolting against the empire, and so forth. None of which Jesus or early Christians engaged in. But other religious leaders across the empire most certainly did. Often stirring up rebellion, leading armies into battle, and that sort of thing.

And yet those simple observances around poverty and charity were threatening to Rome whether or not it was intended. After Constantine came an emperor known as Julian the apostate because he wanted to restore the manly vigor of Rome by returning to pagan worship. He noted the church increased it's influence by "caring not only for their own poor, but ours as well." To combat this he instituted a charity network flowing through pagan temples.

I contest your gnostic division between secular and sacred when you claim Jesus was "not political". I think what you should say is Jesus had no interest in weilding political power because he didn't need it and because it flows contrary to the nature of God with its reliance on coercion and force. This should be instructive to his followers in all ages.

I really agree with this. That said, why not say Jesus wields political power, he is a King of a polity, however, the tools and levers of his rule and reign, and his conquest, are not those the worldly kingdoms, violence and coercion, but the way of the cross. But his polity is real, and conquering, and is present on earth...and stands as a threat the the worldly kingdoms, like Rome, the USA, etc...

[Szdfan]

Christians did not invent charity or care for the poor. In fact one of the biggest social programs in the ancient world was the Roman curra annonae or “grain dole” that fed the masses of Rome.

Nor did it take long for institutional Christianity to support the stratified social order. And the institutional church throughout history has largely stood in opposition to social movements that challenged social stratification

Barnhart isn’t saying that Christians invented charity. He’s describing how Christian witness through charity carried political implications in Rome, regardless of the intentions.

Ken, I feel like you keep pivoting to the sins of the marriage between Church and State without dealing with the moral and theological question some of us are asking: isn’t it possible for public Christian witness to carry political weight without seeking coercive power?

No. I’m simply arguing that Jesus in AD 30 or so during the reign of Augustus and Tiberius was no threat to the Roman Empire and was not seen as such.

How Christianity and the church developed over the next two millennia doesn’t change that fact.

I’m also skeptical of the political weight of Christian witness to the state outside of the normal avenues of political power. Although that’s a different subject from the crucification. I’m not sure where a-political Christian witness has ever accomplished much in the face of a determined state. Not today when it comes to things like US policy in Gaza or immigration. And not any time in the past that I can think of. Perhaps you have other examples in mind?

Whether or not Rome considered Jesus was a threat in AD 30 has no bearing on whether Jesus’s messianic claims had any political dimension to it. Christian witness isn’t determined by what Empire notices.

I’m not sure when Christian witness has ever been measured by its effectiveness. Faithfulness isn’t determined by outcomes.

I hear a contradiction in your argument:

1) The church shouldn’t seek power.

2) But if it doesn’t get political results, then it doesn’t matter.

Are you saying that Christian public witness only matters if it gets political results, which according to your argument, the church shouldn’t be seeking in the first place?

[Ken]

Barnhart isn’t saying that Christians invented charity. He’s describing how Christian witness through charity carried political implications in Rome, regardless of the intentions.

Ken, I feel like you keep pivoting to the sins of the marriage between Church and State without dealing with the moral and theological question some of us are asking: isn’t it possible for public Christian witness to carry political weight without seeking coercive power?

No. I’m simply arguing that Jesus in AD 30 or so during the reign of Augustus and Tiberius was no threat to the Roman Empire and was not seen as such.

How Christianity and the church developed over the next two millennia doesn’t change that fact.

I’m also skeptical of the political weight of Christian witness to the state outside of the normal avenues of political power. Although that’s a different subject from the crucification. I’m not sure where a-political Christian witness has ever accomplished much in the face of a determined state. Not today when it comes to things like US policy in Gaza or immigration. And not any time in the past that I can think of. Perhaps you have other examples in mind?

Whether or not Rome considered Jesus was a threat in AD 30 has no bearing on whether Jesus’s messianic claims had any political dimension to it. Christian witness isn’t determined by what Empire notices.

I’m not sure when Christian witness has ever been measured by its effectiveness. Faithfulness isn’t determined by outcomes.

I hear a contradiction in your argument:

1) The church shouldn’t seek power.

2) But if it doesn’t get political results, then it doesn’t matter.

Are you saying that Christian public witness only matters if it gets political results, which according to your argument, the church shouldn’t be seeking in the first place?

I don’t think there is any contradiction in what I am saying. But there is nuance.

First I think the form of government is immensely important. I believe in democracy, limited government, individual rights and I think that sort of government provides the greatest freedom (including religious freedom) to everyone. I also believe it comes with responsibility to participate which is where I differ from many conservative Anabaptists. If we don’t participate in our own governance, we leave it up to people who may not have the best intentions or motivations. I think the world today is vastly different from the first century Roman Empire where democracy did not exist except perhaps for a few privileged citizens of Rome itself. Certainly not for residents in the distant provinces. So advice that Paul may have written to a particular church at this moment in time is not necessarily universal for all circumstances and all time. Context matters.

Second, I believe church and state should be separate because I can think of no examples, Christian or otherwise, where theocracy has produced good results. Both the state and religion are poisoned and corrupted when they are blended into one. That does not mean that Christians or anyone of any faith should not engage with their government. That is what democracy is. People voting according to their faith, or advocating for their positions on the basis of faith is different from an institutional church acting as a branch of government.

Finally I think we should all be guided by our faith and moral compass in all walks of life, not just the political. How we choose to live our lives. How we choose to care for creation. How we treat the least among us. How we care for our children. And so forth. Politics is a part of that but usually not the biggest part. We are a nation of 330 million. My voice is lost in the wind when it comes to large national issues, but not so much when it comes to my own local community. And so that is where I engage most of my energy. While still taking care about who I vote for and support to represent my community at the regional, state, and national level.

I have no objection to people who choose to engage in national issues with more intensity than I choose to. Who go to Washington to protest, or engage in this or that sort of religious witness. I’m just skeptical it carries any more weight than the voices of any of the other 330 million residents of this country. I think it is mostly drowned out in a sea of money and wealthy interests. But maybe I’m too cynical. Here in the US the consequential turning point in the present day was the 2024 elections. Americans made a choice. And the next big consequential turning point will be 2028. The pendulum swings back and forth and as long as we have a democracy then the worst excesses are self-correcting. I have zero patience with people who voted for Trump or didn’t vote and now complain about what they got. He was not secret about any of his intentions or plans. We made a choice and now we live with it for the next 4 years.

Returning to the subject of this thread? I don’t particularly believe that Jesus represented any sort of existential threat to the Roman Empire. He was an immense threat to the existing religious order in Judea. And that is largely why he was crucified. He made basically zero impact that we are aware of in Rome or any contemporary Roman histories that still survive. Did Christianity ultimately change the Roman Empire? Of course. But that was a process of many centuries. Did it lead to the fall of the Roman Empire? That is more or less the argument of Gibbon writing 250 years ago who was critical of early Christianity’s role in the decline and fall of Rome. But modern historians are less convinced and point to a whole lot of other factors. I would suggest that from Constantine onwards Christianity (or at least the institutional church) essentially became an arm of the state and then became everything that Christians has previously criticized pagan Rome of being: Autocratic, hierarchical, and obsessed with maintaining the stratified social order.

[Szdfan]

One of the things I’m noticing in your argument, Ken, is a fear or anxiety that any kind of Christian involvement in politics leads to Christian nationalism or Constantinianism. I think that’s a real fear. The history of the Church is not great about this, so I understand the impulse of trying to erect a firewall between faith and politics. We are experiencing a moment when it appears many Christians are embracing a kind of Christian nationalism.

But I also think that your definition of politics is too narrow. It flattens both politics and faith. It’s not just the Empire that decides what is political, it’s also the people living in it. Politics isn’t limited to official actions, it’s also how power and authority are negotiated in everyday life among everyday people.

We have daily conversations on this forum where people post highly political and partisan viewpoints and yet claim they are not “political.” That doesn’t make any sense to me, because I think many of our conversations partners are deeply political even though they don’t vote. I think the firewall obscures more than it reveals about how people actually behave and believe.

So I don’t think it’s a question of whether the church is political. It IS political because being political is part of everyday life. The question is what kind of politics the church is practicing.

Christian nationalism is coercive because it seeks to impose its theology onto the entire country. But that’s not the only option. There are many ways that Christians and churches are quietly political. We’ve been talking a lot about immigration. I’d argue that churches which welcome immigrants and advocate for their dignity are also being political, but not in a coercive way.

I don’t think this is a question of whether the Church takes over the State. I agree Christian nationalism is a disaster. But I also believe that Christian faith has always had public consequences, especially whenever it makes public claims about authority and justice. In AD 30, Jesus was political because he made claims about authority that conflicted with Rome, regardless of whether Rome saw it that way. Christians today continue to make claims about authority and morality that conflict with society. That’s also political.

We can’t fully separate faith and politics because both shape how we live together. So the question isn’t whether the church is political, it’s whether we are practicing politics of power or politics of witness.

[Ken]

One of the things I’m noticing in your argument, Ken, is a fear or anxiety that any kind of Christian involvement in politics leads to Christian nationalism or Constantinianism. I think that’s a real fear. The history of the Church is not great about this, so I understand the impulse of trying to erect a firewall between faith and politics. We are experiencing a moment when it appears many Christians are embracing a kind of Christian nationalism.

But I also think that your definition of politics is too narrow. It flattens both politics and faith. It’s not just the Empire that decides what is political, it’s also the people living in it. Politics isn’t limited to official actions, it’s also how power and authority are negotiated in everyday life among everyday people.

We have daily conversations on this forum where people post highly political and partisan viewpoints and yet claim they are not “political.” That doesn’t make any sense to me, because I think many of our conversations partners are deeply political even though they don’t vote. I think the firewall obscures more than it reveals about how people actually behave and believe.

So I don’t think it’s a question of whether the church is political. It IS political because being political is part of everyday life. The question is what kind of politics the church is practicing.

Christian nationalism is coercive because it seeks to impose its theology onto the entire country. But that’s not the only option. There are many ways that Christians and churches are quietly political. We’ve been talking a lot about immigration. I’d argue that churches which welcome immigrants and advocate for their dignity are also being political, but not in a coercive way.

I don’t think this is a question of whether the Church takes over the State. I agree Christian nationalism is a disaster. But I also believe that Christian faith has always had public consequences, especially whenever it makes public claims about authority and justice. In AD 30, Jesus was political because he made claims about authority that conflicted with Rome, regardless of whether Rome saw it that way. Christians today continue to make claims about authority and morality that conflict with society. That’s also political.

We can’t fully separate faith and politics because both shape how we live together. So the question isn’t whether the church is political, it’s whether we are practicing politics of power or politics of witness.

I don’t have any fear whatsoever of Christians getting involved in politics. I think there should be more of it. Although the vast majority of existing politicians are self-identified Christians so it isn’t like we are short in that area.

What I object to is institutionalizing Christianity as some sort of state religion. Like the nonsense with Oklahoma buying Trump Bibles for every classroom, or posting the 10 Commandments on classroom walls. It is usually just performative nonsense that diminishes the religion it purports to support. And makes a mockery of the basic principles of this country.

But I think you are talking about two different things here. The Roman Empire was not a democracy let along a modern democracy. So the only thing that really threatened it was actual military power. Either foreign invaders, regional insurrections, or rogue generals. So no, I don’t believe Jesus talking about turning the other cheek posed the slightest threat to Rome in the 1st Century nor was he acting politically in the context of 1st Century Rome.

Modern America in the 21st Century is something entirely different. I would agree with you that everything has become political in this day and age. But that doesn’t mean that Jesus was actually being political in an entirely different time and place. Which was really the point I was making.

I suppose if we wanted to I could come up with dozens of ways that plain Anabaptists who choose not to vote are still being political in a world where every overt act has political implications. But I don’t think that is a particularly useful exercise. It is just another way of saying that all of our actions have repercussions beyond our immediate selves. And when everything is political then nothing is political.