WI: Church Independant of State?

Many early Christian Theologians were highly opposed to the idea of the Church becoming too closely tied to Secular powers. What if their view had won out, and the Church refused to allow itself to become a state religion of anywhere, and instead worked by itself with the people?
 
Probably fractures into more sects, celtic church etc., as a lack of strong political power probably leads to a weaker centralised hierarchy.
 
I'm sure that quite a few governments would be uncomfortable with an independent church -- potentially a rival or subversive organization. The state might try and force a union with the church, whether the church liked it or not.
 
The internal dynamics of Christianity are against it, but it would certainly be interesting. Without its privileges and wealth, the church will be smaller and less significant both socially and intellectually. The Roman world will need to come to terms with cohabiting, mutually exclusive absolute truth claims, whjich is quite a challenge (though something both China and India managed, so not impossible).

There will be churches, but not basilicas, bishops, but not archbishops and ecumenical patriarchs, and probably neither monasteries nor prebends. The most likely structure is one of religious collegia or corpora, with the funds under the management of bishops. They'd be subject to seizure, same as other temple funds, in times of need. Bishops would also need to be approved by the authorities, of course.

Theologically, it would make interesting things possible. In a world where not everyone is Christian - or supposed to be - the Church needs to decide whether to give up integration into wider society or its exclusivity claim on the lives of its members. I'm guessing the exclusivity will go, and in a few centuries it will be possible to be Christian, Stoic and Aristarchian simultaneously.

That is, of course, assuming the Church stands by the terms of the Gallienian Peace and no other exclusive-claim faith becomes *church.
 
Many early Christian Theologians were highly opposed to the idea of the Church becoming too closely tied to Secular powers. What if their view had won out, and the Church refused to allow itself to become a state religion of anywhere, and instead worked by itself with the people?

I don't really see how this would work. In the culture of late antiquity, the State/the Empire really was all that. Long before Christianity had any official connection to the Empire, there are records of Christian congregations petitioning the Emperor to resolve quasi-theological disputes between the congregation and its bishop, for example. If Christianity did not embrace the State apparatus, it would only be because Christianity opposed the State as part of its opposition to the world--an embrace of separation of Church and State would be anachronistic--which means that Christianity would be a marginal and/or revolutionary force.
 
Theologically, it would make interesting things possible. In a world where not everyone is Christian - or supposed to be - the Church needs to decide whether to give up integration into wider society or its exclusivity claim on the lives of its members. I'm guessing the exclusivity will go, and in a few centuries it will be possible to be Christian, Stoic and Aristarchian simultaneously.

Would Stoics and Aristarchians still amount to anything after the Empire (at least in the West) ceases to exist?
 
Would Stoics and Aristarchians still amount to anything after the Empire (at least in the West) ceases to exist?

Without the church, very likely (though probably not in Gaul, Britain or Spain). The parts where this kind of thing really mattered were never in what we today consider 'core' Europe. It is an accident of history that our paradigm of Roman Empire stems from these parts, and it starts with the Limeskommission. To the Romans, that was vaguely wild west, and certainly not civilised. To the really civilised people, Rome filled that description. So without the all-changing influence of imperial Christianity, Greece, Asia Minor, Syria and Egypt would still be places where philosophical beliefs mattered.
 
Without the church, very likely (though probably not in Gaul, Britain or Spain). The parts where this kind of thing really mattered were never in what we today consider 'core' Europe. It is an accident of history that our paradigm of Roman Empire stems from these parts, and it starts with the Limeskommission. To the Romans, that was vaguely wild west, and certainly not civilised. To the really civilised people, Rome filled that description. So without the all-changing influence of imperial Christianity, Greece, Asia Minor, Syria and Egypt would still be places where philosophical beliefs mattered.


Though of course by about AD 700 most of those places also had been lost. By then the Empire consisted of little more than Asia Minor plus a few odd corners of the Balkans and Italy. Even if "philosophical beliefs" linger on in that fragment, are they likely to have much influence anywhere else?

Seems to me that some of us are attaching far too much importance to what the Empire does or doesn't do. The Christians doesn't really need to take it over (though that helps) because long-term they are simply going to outlive it.
 
Though of course by about AD 700 most of those places also had been lost. By then the Empire consisted of little more than Asia Minor plus a few odd corners of the Balkans and Italy. Even if "philosophical beliefs" linger on in that fragment, are they likely to have much influence anywhere else?

Seems to me that some of us are attaching far too much importance to what the Empire does or doesn't do. The Christians doesn't really need to take it over (though that helps) because long-term they are simply going to outlive it.

Those places were lost to political control, which isn't that big a deal. The fact that they were first governed by an imperial church and then by an Islamic state is much more important to the way philosophy and any alternative belief system disappeared. Without that, what would destroy or absorb these things?
 
Seems to me that some of us are attaching far too much importance to what the Empire does or doesn't do. The Christians doesn't really need to take it over (though that helps) because long-term they are simply going to outlive it.
Because that was what actually shaped Christianity. In the Empire Christianity took place of the state cults that was old Roman tradition.
To the independence of the church would be useful some official ideology that would maintain strict secularity of the Empire.
 
Those places were lost to political control, which isn't that big a deal.

By 600 Rome was down to a population of a few hundreds, while by 700 Constantinople was practically the only major city left even in the east. That goes way beyond a change in political control


The fact that they were first governed by an imperial church and then by an Islamic state is much more important to the way philosophy and any alternative belief system disappeared. Without that, what would destroy or absorb these things?

Either Christianity or whatever replaces it. Assuming Rome and Persia still wear each other our in war (and they've been in intermittent conflict for centuries, so that is likely enough) the Arab Invasions are likely to still happen in some form. If for any reason Islam fails to show up, then Arabia is a mix of Christian, Heathen and Jewish, which could make for an interesting situation. If the Persians have done better than OTL, then Zoroastrianism (and its Manichean offshoot) could also be a factor. But neither Persian Kings nor Arab Sheiks are likely to be any more interested in Stoic Philosophy than Frankish Kings or Bulgar Khans.

One interesting question is what happens when Rome loses Egypt. If Christianity isn't as dominant as OTL (and Islam doesn't replace it) could that open the way to a revival of traditional Egyptian religion, spitting out Christianity etc much as a millennium or two before it spat out the faith of Akhenaton. Could the worship of Isis, Osiris etc get a new innings, erhaps for two more millennia?
 
Top