Please Help Us Keep These Thousands of Blog Posts Growing and Free for All

$5.00

The Early Christian Stance on Secular Involvement

The founder of Christianity, Jesus Christ, emphasized a distinct separation between His followers and the secular world. In John 15:19, Jesus stated, “If you were part of the world, the world would be fond of what is its own. Now because you are no part of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, on this account the world hates you.” This separation was further reinforced in His declaration to Pilate, “My kingdom is no part of this world” (John 18:36).

Early Christians adhered to this directive, focusing on their mission to preach “to the most distant part of the earth” (Acts 1:8). Their avoidance of political involvement was evident as they refrained from holding public office or engaging in secular administration. This stance ensured their undistracted commitment to their spiritual responsibilities. However, over time, this clear demarcation between church and state began to blur.

The Integration of Church and State

After the death of the last apostles, the church’s relationship with the secular world transformed significantly. Religious leaders started envisioning a “kingdom” within the world, contrary to Jesus’ teachings. This change in perspective led to the intertwining of religion and politics, particularly evident in the Byzantine Empire, where the church wielded considerable power.

The Byzantine Church, centered in Byzantium (modern-day Istanbul), saw itself as an earthly representation of the Kingdom of God. Church historian Panayotis Christou noted, “The Byzantines saw their earthly empire as an image of the Kingdom of God.” However, this view was not always shared by the imperial authority, leading to a complex and often contentious relationship between church and state.

The Role of the Patriarch of Constantinople

The patriarch of Constantinople, head of the Eastern Church, emerged as a highly influential figure. His authority extended beyond spiritual matters, as he crowned the emperor and expected the emperor to defend Orthodoxy. The patriarch’s wealth and control over the church’s resources, along with his influence over numerous monks and the laity, bolstered his power.

This power dynamic allowed the patriarch to defy the emperor when necessary. He could leverage the threat of excommunication or other means to impose his will. Additionally, with the decline of civil administration outside the capital, bishops often became the most powerful figures in their cities, equivalent to provincial governors. They engaged in secular business and court cases, further blurring the lines between church and state.

Political Intrigues and Simony

The integration of the pastoral office with politics led to widespread corruption and simony. High-ranking clergymen lived luxuriously, abandoning the apostolic ideals of poverty and sanctity. Positions within the church hierarchy were often bought, and clerics supported by wealthy patrons vied for ecclesiastical offices before the emperor.

Bribery was a common tactic to influence religious leaders. A notable instance involved Empress Zoe (c. 978-1050 C.E.), who had her husband, Romanus III, murdered and sought to marry her lover, Michael IV. She summoned Patriarch Alexius to the palace on Good Friday, and despite the inappropriate timing, he accepted her generous gifts and performed the required services.

The Emperor’s Influence on the Church

Throughout Byzantine history, emperors exercised significant control over the church. They often appointed patriarchs, ensuring that no one could hold the position against their will. Emperor Andronicus (1260-1332 C.E.) II, for instance, changed patriarchs nine times, seeking the most compliant candidates. Some patriarchs even promised in writing to do whatever the emperor demanded, regardless of its lawfulness.

Emperors also presided over ecclesiastical councils, guiding debates, formulating articles of faith, and using their authority to enforce orthodoxy. They had the power to depose uncooperative patriarchs and appoint their successors. The influence of the emperor in ecclesiastical matters was profound, with bishops around the court often yielding to his will.

Dogma and Political Expediency

Orthodoxy and heresy were often influenced by political considerations rather than theological purity. Emperors used doctrinal disputes to assert their authority and maintain the stability of their empire. For example, Emperor Heraclius (575-641 C.E.) introduced Monothelitism in an attempt to heal a schism regarding the nature of Christ. To ensure the allegiance of the southern provinces, he appointed Cyrus of Phasis as the patriarch of Alexandria and prefect of Egypt, with the authority to enforce the new doctrine.

The use of religious doctrine to serve political ends was a common practice in the Byzantine Empire. Emperors dictated dogma, demanded obedience from the church, and persecuted those who opposed them, charging them with being enemies of both the faith and the state.

Monothelitism and Conservative Evangelical Christians

Monothelitism is a theological doctrine that emerged in the 7th century, asserting that Jesus Christ has two natures (divine and human) but only one will. This doctrine was an attempt to reconcile the Chalcedonian definition of Christ’s two natures with a unified will. However, it was condemned as heretical by the Third Council of Constantinople in 680-681 AD, which affirmed that Christ has two wills corresponding to his two natures.

Conservative Evangelical Christians’ View

Conservative evangelical Christians generally adhere to the conclusions of the early ecumenical councils, including the Third Council of Constantinople. These councils are considered authoritative in defining orthodox Christian doctrine. Therefore, Monothelitism is viewed as heretical by conservative evangelical Christians because it contradicts the orthodox understanding of Christ’s dual nature and dual will, which is essential for the doctrine of the Incarnation and the full humanity and divinity of Jesus.

Thus, Monothelitism is considered heretical by conservative evangelical Christians because it was condemned by the Third Council of Constantinople, which is recognized as an authoritative source of orthodox Christian doctrine. This council affirmed that Christ has two wills, corresponding to his two natures, which is a key tenet of orthodox Christology.

The Church’s Compromised Position

The involvement of the church in secular affairs led to significant moral and spiritual compromises. The early Christian ideal of being “no part of the world” was increasingly disregarded as church leaders engaged in political and military activities. The pursuit of power and wealth corrupted many within the church hierarchy, undermining the apostolic teachings of humility, service, and spiritual devotion.

The actions of Patriarch Ignatius (c. 799-878 C.E.) and Chief Minister Bardas exemplify the church’s compromised position. When Ignatius refused communion to Bardas, the minister retaliated by implicating Ignatius in a plot, leading to his arrest and banishment. Bardas then orchestrated the election of Photius, a layman who rapidly ascended the ecclesiastical ranks to become patriarch. Photius was known for his ambition, arrogance, and political acumen, raising questions about his spiritual qualifications.

Theological and Moral Implications

The blending of church and state in the Byzantine Empire had profound theological and moral implications. The church’s involvement in secular matters often compromised its spiritual integrity and led to the erosion of apostolic values. The early Christian emphasis on separation from the world and focus on spiritual mission was replaced by a pursuit of political power and influence.

This transformation contradicted the teachings of Jesus and the apostles, who advocated for a clear distinction between the kingdom of God and the kingdoms of this world. The early Christians’ refusal to engage in political affairs was rooted in their commitment to a higher spiritual calling. As Jesus stated, “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36).

The Enduring Tension Between Church and State

The tension between church and state persisted throughout Byzantine history. The church’s increasing involvement in political matters often led to conflicts with the imperial authority. The patriarchs of Constantinople wielded significant power, but their position was always precarious, subject to the whims of the emperor.

This enduring tension is illustrated by the frequent changes in patriarchal appointments and the manipulation of ecclesiastical councils by the emperor. The church’s attempt to assert its authority often clashed with the emperor’s desire to maintain control over religious matters. This dynamic created a complex and often unstable relationship between the two institutions.

The Legacy of Byzantine Church-State Relations

The legacy of the Byzantine church-state relationship is multifaceted. On one hand, the church played a crucial role in shaping the religious and cultural identity of the Byzantine Empire. It contributed to the preservation and dissemination of Christian teachings, art, and literature. The church also provided social and charitable services, influencing the lives of many Byzantines.

On the other hand, the church’s entanglement with political power led to significant moral and spiritual challenges. The pursuit of wealth and influence often overshadowed the church’s spiritual mission, leading to corruption and a departure from apostolic values. The church’s involvement in political intrigues and its compromise of spiritual integrity had long-lasting repercussions for its credibility and moral authority.

Reflections on Church and State

The history of the Byzantine Empire offers valuable lessons on the relationship between church and state. It highlights the dangers of the church becoming too closely aligned with political power and the potential for corruption and compromise. The early Christian ideal of separation from the world serves as a reminder of the importance of maintaining a clear distinction between spiritual and secular responsibilities.

The Bible provides guidance on this matter, emphasizing the need for Christians to focus on their spiritual mission and avoid becoming entangled in secular affairs. As Jesus instructed His followers, “Seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well” (Matthew 6:33). This directive underscores the priority of spiritual devotion over worldly pursuits.

The relationship between church and state in the Byzantine Empire was complex and multifaceted, characterized by both cooperation and conflict. The church’s involvement in secular affairs often led to moral and spiritual compromises, challenging the early Christian ideal of separation from the world. The legacy of Byzantine church-state relations offers important lessons on the dangers of entangling spiritual and political responsibilities, emphasizing the need for a clear distinction between the two.

The Bible’s teachings on this matter remain relevant, reminding Christians of their primary commitment to God’s kingdom and their spiritual mission. By reflecting on the history of the Byzantine Empire, contemporary Christians can gain insights into the importance of maintaining the integrity of their faith while navigating the complexities of the world.

Should Christians Vote?

It should be noted that there is a difference between the church acquiring political power to control the state corruptly and a Christian casting a vote for a leader who is most likely to continue religious freedom for Christians to carry out their ministry while awaiting Jesus’ return.

NOTE: Christians who dislike the idea of voting will say, “You cannot vote your way out of this mess, just wait on Jesus.” RESPONSE: We voted our way into the mess of Jimmy Carter, who ruined America, and then we voted our way out of the mess with Ronald Reagan, who restored American greatness. We voted our way into the mess of Barack Hussein Obama, who ruined America, and then we voted our way out of the mess with Donald Trump, who restored American greatness. And we voted our way into the mess of Joe Biden, who ruined America in just four years, and now we can vote our way out of the mess with Trump, who can restore American greatness yet again. IMPORTANT: Christians stop being lazy after the problems get fixed by great conservatives and then go back to liberal, progressive, socialist-minded Democrats. Elections do matter each and every time. You will see below what Christians are supposed to be doing while they wait on the Second Coming of Christ.

There are clear principles set out in the Bible that permit Christians to take a balanced, biblical view of voting and for whom they should be voting. Moreover, there appears to be no principle against the practice of voting itself. However, if we examine the Scriptures and reason from the Scriptures (Ac 17:2-3, 11), we can vote with a clean conscience. We will use Trump as our example because he seems to be the lightning rod for many “Christians” who can not fathom how other Christians could vote for such a man. Some principles will be mentioned here at the outset. No politician is Jesus Christ, so stop looking for such a person. By the time most politicians reach the United States Senate, they are generally speaking morally crooked, perverse, distorted, dishonest, and evasive when they are compared alongside the just, right and correct ways of the wise servants of God. (Deut. 32:5; Ps 101:4; Prov. 2:15; 8:8; 11:20; 17:20; 19:1; 28:6). This is not always true, nor is it always to the fullest extent of their character, but they are somewhere on the spectrum of morally crooked, perverse, distorted, dishonest, and evasive. Yet, all is well because we are not voting for the character of the man or woman but rather for their voting record. As the saying goes, actions speak louder than words; in this case, voting actions speak louder than political rhetoric.

1 Timothy 2:1-2 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
2 First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, ²for kings and all who are in high positions, [why?] that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way.

Certainly, logic dictates that if we are urged to pray for a politician, then we can clearly act on behalf of our prayer by voting for that politician. Why do we pray and vote for politicians? We vote for politicians who have a track record of passing legislation that will protect religious freedoms. At the same time, we lead a peaceful and quiet life carrying out the great commission that Jesus gave us. Then, one may ask or comment that Trump had no voting record. Yes, but all sixteen of the Republicans running with him did have a voting record, and they evidenced being morally crooked, perverse, distorted, dishonest, and evasive, with the exception of maybe one or two, but they could not have beaten Hillary. The USA was ready for something other than the devious, whimsical words of the same political mindset they had been experiencing for decades. Trump has been carrying out tremendous conservative actions since taking office, to the surprise of even those who voted for him.

Moreover, President Trump, against all the odds, had been carrying out another aspect of God’s Word.

Romans 13:1 Updated American Standard Version (UASV)
13 Let every soul be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except by God, and those that exist have been placed by God.

Does this verse mean that God has miraculously set up and established every governmental authority since the beginning of man? No, not at all. God indirectly allowed governments to form, meaning that they serve a purpose by their presence. Many governments make some effort to make laws that protect their public. Some governments abuse their power in the extreme, like Adolf Hitler. Obama abused his power in that he willfully contributed to the United States abandoning its biblical Judeo-Christian values and shifting toward the liberal, progressive worldview. He also willfully weakened the United States’ ability to protect the world from existing threats. Governmental authorities exist because God has allowed them to exist. In some cases, some leaders use their power to protect religious freedom and promote a biblical worldview. The United States has protected the world for over a century from wicked nations and other threats, spilling much of their people’s blood and treasures. The world has largely been ungrateful. However, this peace that we have had since World War II has allowed Christians to carry out their evangelism work with relative freedom.—Matthew 24:14; 28:19-20; Acts 1:8.

Should Christians be Patriotic?

About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).