WI: Christianity were more universal

What can be done so that modern Christianity is incompatible with the nation state, and instead had something like a caliphate in the past?

What would be the implications?
 
What can be done so that modern Christianity is incompatible with the nation state, and instead had something like a caliphate in the past?

What would be the implications?
Considering how neither Jesus nor the Apostles said anything about government aside from "Fear God; honor the king" - pretty much nothing without changing the religion beyond recognition. You can have Constantine establishing a concept of the Emperor as isapóstolos - but he did that IOTL, and the concept of the Emperor persisted into medieval theoretical political theory, but the nation-state still developed.

The most you can do, I think, is to have the borders of Christendom be coterminous with the Empire as long as possible so the two are linked in the popular mindset even if not in theory. But considering Christianity's strong missionary impulse, I don't think they could stay that way. Remember that a substantial number of the barbarians who invaded Rome were Christians already.
 
Was the Holy Roman Emperor and similar other titles like Emperor of Rome and or Byzantium similar? The title of Emperor of Rome is not too dissimilar from the Amir al-Mu'minin (deputy of the faithful or believers), in its post Christian sense.
 
Was the Holy Roman Emperor and similar other titles like Emperor of Rome and or Byzantium similar? The title of Emperor of Rome is not too dissimilar from the Amir al-Mu'minin (deputy of the faithful or believers), in its post Christian sense.
But, there was never a principle of "One emperor rules all Christendom," except very abstractly in the medieval period. Even post-Constantine - when the Christians in Persia and Germany could maybe be forgotten - the Imperial crown could be split among, say, Constantine's sons. In Byzantium, single rule was more solid, but they never even claimed to rule all of Christendom.
 
You're both more or less right on this.
Roman imperium, by the Late Antiquity, was extremely tied up with Christianity and the imperial dominion over Christians (at the point, in the West, the imperial title itself was carrying that and not an imperium over Romans).

But, it was mostly a thing because, by the IVth, Christianity became an integral part of Roman identity, and remained so in the East while when Roman state collapsed in the West, it became part of the post-imperial identity, managed by the Romano-Barbarian imperium.

For most of Early and High Middle Ages, tough, it looked more like the Arabo-Islamic conception : you did have clashing political claims over the dominion on Christians (the most notable being Carolingian/Ottonians vs. Romans), but these claims weren't seriously criticized at their core. Similarily, you did have clashs about the dominion over Muslims trough the Caliphal title (Fatimids vs Abassids vs Umayyads are the most famous, but you have many others) but it never was seriously considered void.
And in a same time, it did played a significant part, even in Latin Christiendom (it allowed Ottonians to have a big influence not only on their own demesnes, but as well in France, Poland, etc.)

It changes with the late XIth and especially with the Renaissance of XIIth and the re-birth of bureaucratic states.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
If things are to be taken literally (which they obviously will not be by the vast majority of people), islam is incompatible with a nation state. The islamic ideal is that the Caliphate should include the entire community of believers, and that this community should extend to include all of humanity. Islam is, in many ways, the ultimate form of monotheism, and is very universalist in its aims.

The difference with Christianity in this regard is that the Christian teaching is explicitly that the kingdom of God is not of this Earth. There is no Christian equivalent to the Caliphate. One might equate 'Christendom' to the Ummah, to some extent, but that pertains to the community of the faithful. Not to a political union (be it universal or otherwise).

Needless to say, religious scripture is subject to interpretation and re-interpretation at all times. Obviously, the islamic world has nation-states, and none of them look very ready to merge into an actual universalist caliphate anytime soon. But it is understood (in a religious context) that at some vague point in the undefined future, that universalist union will come about in the physical world. Christianity doesn't have that. As far as mainstream Christian eschatology is concerned, the wotld will remain divided into various states and such, and the universalist kingdom of God will only come about "after the end", so to speak. It's mostly a spiritual, non-physical concept.

To include a Caliphate-like universalist pretention in Christianity, scripture should probably have Jesus proclaim not that "My kingdom is not of this Earth", but rather the opposite: an explicit instruction to establish a united commonity of believers, that excersises political power here on Earth, and that aims to eventually include all of humanity. This would obviously have major implications for Christianity as a whole.

But again: religion can and will be interpreted and re-interpreted. Just as the islamic world includes nation-states, so Christianity - without altering a single letter of scripture - might come to embrace universalist ambitions... if only made subject to sufficient ATL re-interpretation. There is the concept of Caesaropapism, wherein emperor and pope are one person. If such a thing were to come about (as an ATL solution to the Investiture conflict?), the pope-emperor would be the spiritual leader of all Christians (at least... all catholics), and the physical ruler of a large part of Europe (namely the Holy Roman Empire). And in many ways, the Papal position is ideal for this: the pope is held to be the successor to saint Peter, just as the Caliph is held to be the successor to Mohammed. (Obviously, saint Peter and Mohammed don't fill the same role within their respective religions, but you get the analogy!)

Basically, one might fancifully imagine a scenario where religious and earthly function are merged. You had prince-bishops already. You can extend that, so that the Electors of the HRE are also automatically Cardinals, and they elect the Pope-Emperor from their midst. This Pope-Emperor rules the HRE (which would at the very least diectly include the Papal States) directly. Other catholic states would be politically autonomous in practice, but theoretically subservient to this supreme ruler.

With an early enough POD, you could let the united Frankish Empire survive and let it grow really big (including Germany, France, the Low Countries, Austria and Italy)... and have the emperor of that vast empire also be pope. That's pretty much a Christian equivalent to the Caliphate, I'd say!
 
Technically, Roman Catholic Christianity is incompatible with nation states. It's just that everybody has agreed to ignore the fact. My guess is that the theological issues any other Christian denominations might have would equally be disregarded.
 

Towelie

Banned
The nature of early Christianity, and indeed the method in which the Bible was compiled, made a unitary doctrine of faith almost impossible. Islam had a highly centralized concept of succession and rule at first, and the infallibility of the Qu'ran and indeed interpretation of the Qu'ran helped in this quite a bit.

Consider for a minute that the one who probably claims the most authority in Christianity, the Pope, claims to be the successor of St. Peter, the disciple who erred and denied Christ three times. There were some offices like that of the Byzantine Emperor who claimed semi divine authority (Vice Regent of Christ, I believe, was one of the titles used), but other lesser Kings could also claim divine right to rule.

The best way to bring this about is for the Catholic Church to claim significant temporal lands across Europe.
 

The 'two-swords' dogma of papal supremacy. The fundamental tenet of the nation state is that the nation (usually read: the people) is sovereign. It has final say on every aspect of its governance and law. This can be circumscribed by constitutional provisions or treaties, but in the end, that is the foundation on which it stands. It is also the basis on which nation states makes demands on the loyalties of their citizens that are pretty close to all-encompassing.

Catholic teaching on government is that it is not sovereign, but subject to the authority of the church acting in the best interest of the souls of its faithful. This is not the Lutheran cop-out dividing matters spiritual and temporal at all. The church, and thus the pope, is sovereign in all matters. Itas magisterium reserves the right to instruct, correct, and punish those in government who err. In theory, it reserves the right to dissolve all secular bonds and has absolute claim on the loyalties of all Catholics worldwide.

Needless to say this is not something the Catholic church has been trying to do lately. I think the last time it was seriously attempted even a bit was the Syllabus Errorum (a justly mocked document), and the last time it was an issue in the Anglosphere was the presidential election of 1960 (by which time not many people took it seriously). Political Catholicism today belongs to the national sphere, casting itself as a competing ideology among many in the arena of the nation state. But the dogma did not go away. No dogma ever goes away, and certainly not one so fundamental. It is just being politely ignored by everyone. Theoretically, the Dictatus is still in force.
 
My impression is that it was only after the fall of the Roman Empire in the west that the pope really became the leader and that the Roman emperor was more important before that. Before Constantin, my impression is that Christianity was a lot more heterogenous. Of course, Islam was from the beginning a political religion, but in theory I see no reason why Christianity could not have developed in a direction that would have fused the position of emperor and pope. Didn´t that happen in the Byzantine Empire?
 
Could there be some sort of pope-emperor? As in could a pope take political power in the dying Western Roman Empire before it falls? I'm not the most well-versed in this part of history, but this sounds like an intriguing possibility.
 
Of course, Islam was from the beginning a political religion, but in theory I see no reason why Christianity could not have developed in a direction that would have fused the position of emperor and pope. Didn´t that happen in the Byzantine Empire?
Throughout the Byzantine period, the Emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople were two distinct people. Until near the end, the Patriarch was definitely under the Emperor's thumb, and the Emperor was hailed as "Equal to the Apostles," but the offices never merged.
 
Throughout the Byzantine period, the Emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople were two distinct people. Until near the end, the Patriarch was definitely under the Emperor's thumb, and the Emperor was hailed as "Equal to the Apostles," but the offices never merged.

But did the emperor have more power than the patriarch when it came to religious questions?
 
But did the emperor have more power than the patriarch when it came to religious questions?
In practice? Probably during the Empire's glory days; look at the iconoclast controversy. But absolutely never in theory, and not in practice either toward the end; look at the reunion controversy.
 
Could there be some sort of pope-emperor? As in could a pope take political power in the dying Western Roman Empire before it falls? I'm not the most well-versed in this part of history, but this sounds like an intriguing possibility.

In theory he could try, but the tradition of seeing the church hierarchy as separate from the state is very strongly entrenched. It's very unlikely that evben a significant minority of Christians would go along with it voluntarily. THe Roman state was not actually terribly effective, so making this stick is almost impossible.
 
What if the vandal sack of Rome never happens?
As I remember, St Augustin theorized the City of God concept in reaction to this, as in the kingdom of God not being on this earth.

If this doesn't happen surely it Will be more tied?
 
Top