Different Church

By the late middle ages the Church was corrupt, sexist, sex obsessed anti semitic, and in some cases murderous.

Is there any way it could have been different?
 
Ways aplenty

(honestly, the longer I look at the history of the church, the more I think it had an uncanny knack of ALWAYS choosing the worst path)

I don't really have the time to go into this in the depth it deserves (I love theological PODs), but I'll throw out a few of the obvious ideas:

- No 'Concordate' with Constantine. Instead of making itself part of the imperial power structure, Christianity remains one of the many 'religiones licitae' of the Empire. Different heresies remain in being, and many cities end up with a number of bishops denouncing each other as heresiarchs. The end result is a pattern more like that of mainstream Islam, where legal and theological differences are resolved by debate and differing opinions stand, with the faithful free to follow the ulema or ayatollah of their choosing. There would still be differences, of course - Christianity has nothing asclear and practical as Sharia law - but I think it'd work.

- No rise of the Papacy. Without the mission of St Augustine (NOT of Hippo), the English church would be more strongly influenced by the Frankish Adelskirche (noblemen bishops) and the Hiberno-Scottish monastic church. The end result there would be amore local power structure that, in turn, is brought to the continent. Thus, no orientation of the English church towards Rome, very likely no papal coronation of Charlemagne (the whole Papal-Carolingian 'Axis of Evil' seems the brainchild of anglo-Saxon monks rather than traditional Frankish secular clergy), no 10th century 'reform orders', no Cluny, no investiture contest.... an Anglican Europe, and it doesn't even know its Anglican.

- A different outcome for the Investiture Contest. I know, I advocate killing popes too often for it to be entirely healthy, but here a few points made could have altered the balance of history.

- Arius wins out. That's assuming the Arian church *stays* tolerant when it doesn't have to be any more (not that likely), but it might make a good beginning.

- For a more exotic one, let early Christianity be more strongly influenced by the Gnostics (some of whom held strongly dualistic beliefs and worshipped Sophia, God's sister), the Mandees, or the Judeo-Christians (who are ATL not almost completely wiped out during the Jewish Wars). Rabbinic Christianity sounds fascinating (though not necessarily nice - read Josephus...)

- Allegedly, both Gregory and Innocent "the Greats" didn't want to be popes. If the first gets his wish, the second will be impossible anyway.

- How about Paul, instead of falling off his mule and praying, gets tangled up in the belly rope and breaks his neck outside Damascus... (assuming that story is true, anyway)

- Have the Muslims conquer all of Europe. They won't let the dhimmis get away with any of that sh*t (of course that won't make things any nicer because now it's Muslim clerics who get to be sexist, racist, corrupt, brutal, warlike, oppressive and greedy - though probably not quite as antisemitic as the Catholic Church)
 
Like Carlton I like theological POD's (much more than the Worst/Best generals stuff which really should be in Chat).

Most of Carlton's ideas are apropos though I think sans St. Paul, Christianity would be unrecognizable (and not very big)

Some other possibilties: James the Just lives longer. There is theory that in the period after Pentecost he really was the central authority of the CHurch and Peter assumed control only after James died. So this gives us a Church which has greater ties to Juadaism and is unable to deny Jesus had siblings which gets rid of the Triple Virginity blather which contributed to its antisex attitude.

Or we could get rid of the overrated theologian who dreamt up the Triple Virginity--St. (alleged) Jerome. Also Jerome unlike Augustine, argued for an Ends justfies the Means attitude towards the Church deceit, so this helps with the less corrupt Church aspect.

Getting rid of St. Clement might just prevent the formation of a Papacy which pretends to be a continuous succession from Peter. Linus existed but it is dubious he was Peter's successor and Cletus' very existence is suspect.

A different mix of canonical books?. Having the Apocalypse of St. John out of the Bible and perhaps the Gospel of St. Thomas in would be helpful.
 
High Quality answers!!

The answers in this thread show an awful lot of knowledge!! respect

As a matter of fact, I dont think that religion is the reason for the misery concerning all the mentioned stuff. Religion is an instrument of mankind ond not viceversa. So the people were afraid of many things at that time, and they used christianity as an explanation. so, if the dogma was different, the explanaition for the misery would have been different. But still there would have been this cruelty in society.
 
In all fairness, "corrupt, sexist ... and in some cases murderous" could be applied to many (or most) of the religious and secular institutions around the world in most periods of history, so these can hardly be said to be distinctive characteristics of the medieval western Christian church. The sex obsessed (mostly in a negative way) and anti-semitic elements did tend to distinguish mainstream medieval Christianity.

What if Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, but did so more gradually than in OTL?

Say that Constantine's father Constantius is never born. In his place, a young man named Aurelian rises to power as one of Diocletian's 2 junior emperors. Aurelian gradually defeats his rivals, although at a slower pace than OTL Constantine. By 328 AD, Aurelian is in sole control of the Empire as Aurelian II. In 330 AD, he issues an edict tolerating Christianity but does not favor it officially like Constantine did. Christianity continues to grow at a modest but steady rate. Aurelian has no surviving male children when he dies, so power goes to his right hand man Valerian, who continues his policies of tolerating Christianity. A few years into his reign, Valerian faces a uprising in the western part of the Empire. The rebel general is known for being a strong traditionalist who is pretty hostile to Christianity, so the more heavily Christian areas in Italy, Spain, and Gaul generally support Valerian. When Valerian defeats and kills the usurper, Christians hail his victory. Although he never becomes a Christian himself, Valerian extends more imperial patronage to Christian churches in different parts of the Empire.

Valerian has 2 sons (Valerian III and Maximinus II) who divide the empire between themselves in 362 AD. The son who has the eastern part of the Empire (Aurelian III) is attracted to Christianity and accepts baptism as a Christian in 363. Unlike OTL Constantine, though, he is not interested in picking an official church doctrine and enforcing it against all other doctrines. His Christian faith is fairly simple and straightforward - in fact, it makes him a little bit TOO nice and mild-mannered, because he is overthrown and murdered by Victorinus in 368. Victorinus in turn is defeated and executed by Maximinus, coming from the west to avenge his dead brother. Maximinus divides the eastern portion of the Empire between 2 subordinates. The Balkans and Asia minor go to Diocletian II, while Egypt and Syria go to Theodorus. Theodorus is attracted to Christianity, and is baptized within a year of his accession. Meanwhile, the Balkan provinces of the empire face a similar crisis in the 370s as in OTL, as numerous Gothic refugees from the Huns seek entrace into the Empire. At first, the situation is handled better than in OTL, but tensions still rise and a large number of Goths revolt against the Romans in 379 AD, joined by Alans and Huns from north of the Danube. Diocletian II is killed in battle, and Theodorus has to join forces with the aging Maximinus from the west to contain the barbarians. Theodorus, the convert to Christianity, particularly distinguishes himself in this campaign.

In 399 AD, Maximinus finally dies. In 405 AD, his son, Claudius III, ruler of the western part of the Empire, accepts baptism in Mediolanum. From this point onward, it becomes standard for Roman Emperors will accept baptism. However, there is no precedent for Emperors becoming actively involved in setting church doctrine. There are church councils, but not under imperial chairmanship. In areas where there are rival groups of Christians, there are rival bishops within the same city. Emperors may favor one Christian sect or another with patronage, but there is little persecution of rival groups.
 

Straha

Banned
theologicla PODS are way better than the best/worst generals shit. thwe thread starts for those should be banned,recieve viruses and have thier ISP connection broken, then I *REALLY* start punishing them.
 
A challenging, very challenging POD.
I think it must be early in the history of the Church, and must include a number of conditions:
a) there must be a lot of stress on the clergy not becoming involved with politics, and having to renounce earthly goods
b) a lot of damage was done by Constantine, when the church became a tool of the empire. The only way to defuse this would be to have a number of competing religions in the Roman empire. In a way, it should not be so difficult: Rome was always very sensible about religion, and a state religion was never a big issue there. If we can avoid the concept "as God above, the Emperor on earth" we are very well ahead on the right track
c) it is one of my pet ideas, but if there is no St. Paul, the church stays smaller, and much more liberal
d) a number of competing religions (and of equally competing Christian eresies) would butterfly away the Moslems (who could probably join in the Monofysite faith)
e) as Heinlein pointed out, freedom in a society is very often directly proportional to the number of competing churches
 
The last book to be added to the Christian canon was the Song of Solomon, in the 3-4th century AD. What if they had continued adding to the canon? So by the 20th century we might have 200 books...maybe I just answered my own question. :p

If they did constantly add more books, maybe just one every few hundred years, competing churches might have their own versions of what's canon.
Churches might become more hidebound, tied down to what's in their version of an increasingly long Bible. Or maybe not. I just thought I'd throw out the idea.

It wouldn't necessarily prevent abuses, but it would encourage the idea of a living, growing, evolving Bible.

And from uchronia.org:

McDevitt, Jack. "The Tomb".
Divergence: 312
What if: Constantine was defeated by Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge, leading to the complete break-up of Rome and a never-ending dark age.
Summary: C. 1700, a young man meets an old man excavating a tomb in a ruined city.

Published: In What Might Have Been? Volume 3: Alternate Wars (eds. Gregory Benford and Martin H. Greenberg), q.v.

I read this story; it implies that Christianity has gone extinct. But the characters in the story wouldn't know what happened to the Eastern churches, so they might still exist. They would have developed very differently.

To avoid the troubles in Europe, they might have expanded eastward, and the characters in the story would never know. Although, the Eastern Churches might have sent a delegation who make contact with the characters in the story the very day after the story ends. ;)

The 1400-year dark age does seem bizarre.

What-if2 has a scenario with Jesus being pardoned, but the essay has Constantine speculating on the future development of the Church, which I found implausible. The essay doesn't say how the Church avoids the abuses of power of OTL.

It's strange that all 12 apostles don't have their gospels and epistles in the canon. If they had, that would have made a lot of difference...what the differences would be, I don't know. It might have been an improvement.

Certainly, getting rid of Revelations would be a big change.

One of the problems was the extreme sexism--the early Church leaders didn't want women portrayed as disciples, apostles or ministers.

Etruscans allowed more power for women in their society, so if the Etruscans had dominated Italy and the Mideast, with the rise of Christianity under an Etruscan empire, that might have helped.

And...

Ober, Josiah. "Not by a Nose".
Divergence: -36
What if: Marc Anthony was able to start his campaign against the Parthians on schedule and defeat them.
Summary: Essay which argues that Anthony's success in battle, and consequent lessened need for support from Cleopatra, would have enabled him to overcome Octavian. Subsequently, Rome would have remained governed by the Senate but would become bi-polar in its cultural development, the second pole being Alexandria.

Published: In What If? 2: Eminent Historians Imagine What Might Have Been (ed. Robert Cowley), q.v.

The essay has Cleopatra's successors being leaders of an Eastern Church.

Judas repents, becomes an apostle, his gospel is preserved.

Nicodemus' gospel becomes canon.

Nero impulsively makes Christianity the official religion, he declares himself the Second Coming, he orders himself killed so he can rise again, he stays dead, but the church leaders didn't really think he was the second coming anyway, but the incident makes them awfully careful about mixing religious and political power. Despite Nero's death, his edict making Christianity legal still stands.

An early general converts to Christianity, becomes emperor, it becomes legal much earlier.

During the Year of the Four Emperors, 69 AD, WI one of the emperors is Christian? What if the empire was divided four ways that year and was never reunited?
 
Perhaps the Church accepts Constantine as a believer, but firmly rejects State favoritism (is this the Concordate?). They cite Jesus's "my kingdom is not of this world."

The Celtic Church remaining powerful and influential is a good one too...with its monasto-centrism, it'd be more open to learning and debate, and married priests eliminate the anti-sex stuff.

"One of the problems was the extreme sexism--the early Church leaders didn't want women portrayed as disciples, apostles or ministers."

How early is that? Acts describes the daughters of the Apostle Philip as "prophetesses" and of the early church leaders Paul praises @ the end of Romans, about 1/3 are women.

Methinks that as the Romans became Christians, Christianity got more Roman. Roman culture was rather sexist, so this unfortunate ideology got in too.

"Some other possibilties: James the Just lives longer. There is theory that in the period after Pentecost he really was the central authority of the CHurch and Peter assumed control only after James died. So this gives us a Church which has greater ties to Juadaism and is unable to deny Jesus had siblings which gets rid of the Triple Virginity blather which contributed to its antisex attitude."

That's a cool POD. Where might Paul factor in this new scenario? He had a fight with Peter over his refusing to eat with Gentile believers b/c of influence from James.

"Or we could get rid of the overrated theologian who dreamt up the Triple Virginity--St. (alleged) Jerome. Also Jerome unlike Augustine, argued for an Ends justfies the Means attitude towards the Church deceit, so this helps with the less corrupt Church aspect."

No Jerome means no Latin Vulgate. What might this do?
 
Matt Quinn said:
"One of the problems was the extreme sexism--the early Church leaders didn't want women portrayed as disciples, apostles or ministers."

How early is that?

It's not a matter of how early, it's that there were a lot of different attitudes among the early church leaders.
Matt Quinn said:
Methinks that as the Romans became Christians, Christianity got more Roman. Roman culture was rather sexist, so this unfortunate ideology got in too.
I agree, that's what I was trying to get at.
Matt Quinn said:
No Jerome means no Latin Vulgate. What might this do?

Well, since Latin was the common language, and they needed a uniform translation, and a good one, somebody was going to have to come up with something.

What if each of the Popes was expected to leave behind at least one work-- an epistle, something, which would be considered for inclusion in the canon. Not all the Popes would have their contributions accepted, but it would have been interesting.

What did you think of the Nero idea? I felt like adding an... :eek:

:)
 
Top