Concise Oxford | The end of Christendom?

I think not says Dion Oxford

S

ome would argue that Christendom has finally come to an end. Now we can get on with the business of the church once and for all and leave the crusades and residential schools behind.

Before Christendom, becoming a Christian was very much a counter-cultural act. When people became Christians and got baptized (became soldiers?), they weren’t asked if they believed in all of the doctrines of the church and to sign some kind of doctrinal covenant (”I promise not to drink or smoke or gamble…”). They were asked about their works. “Did you help clothe people who needed clothing? Did you feed hungry people? Did you care for the sick and visit people in jail?” It was the answers to these questions that solidified membership in the church. Not questions of stances on moral and ethical issues ranging from sexuality to what one consumes to what one wears to church.

But along came Constantine, and with him came Christendom. And with it, these questions became very difficult to ask of Christians at the time of baptism. Alan Kreider, in his book The Change in Conversion and the Origin of Christendom, points out that Christendom is the notion that Christian belief is normative. He states that Christianity is properly aligned with government and other institutions, and that coercion is justified in order to maintain this norm. As Christianity aligned with power, to convert was suddenly to conform. And the damage that conformity did to the mission of the church runs very deep.

While many scholars argue today that Christendom has ended, I beg to differ. The church, including The Salvation Army, is very much still in bed with the state. In my opinion, we still let “Caesar” tell us our place.

What might some examples of that be? Well, let’s consider our charitable status. “Caesar” lets us know when we can have charitable status, and it only comes if we tow a certain party line. That party line comes with specific rules on how much advocacy a church can do. In Canada, the rule is that if a charity spends more than 15% of its time doing advocacy, then its charitable status will be revoked. Caesar is yet again telling us what we can and cannot do as the church, and we are bending the knee to that out of fear of losing that status and as a result losing donations. I’ve recently been strongly reminded of this rule by some folks at THQ. This is Caesar’s threat of persecution, and we are letting him away with it.

Also, what we actually say to Caesar as a church is strongly monitored and controlled so as not to offend him. New rules in the SA here in Toronto [Canada] insist that all correspondence with any political or corporate entity be streamlined through the PR department. Now, I know that this can be helpful in terms of communicating key messages to the powers that be, but the amount of time it takes to speak truth to power these days is an obvious sign, at least to me, that we are more concerned about offending Caesar than we are about speaking out about injustice. People are dying all around us; power is corrupt and catering to the rich and powerful. The SA is positioned to speak out and make change but is largely silent out of fear of offending Caesar and therefore losing money.

And what about the constant conversations in the SA about the doctrines, uniform wearing, band and songsters and church music, evangelism vs. social justice, drinking and smoking and gambling, community church vs. traditional corps and same sex marriage that consume us - even while people all around us are dying? Our numbers continue to shrink, and we scratch our heads and ask why. The Salvation Army is the fastest declining denomination in Canada.

I’ve just been in the US for the past week. I have a masochistic love of Christian TV. I like to watch a bit of it every night during the commercial breaks of whatever else I am watching, just to experience the embarrassment and the pain of it. While in the US, I tuned in to Christian TV on their National Day of Prayer. They said that their country was decaying and that now they needed to pray more than ever before. The most pressing issue for prayer on this particular show was that the state of Maine had just legalized same-sex unions. The second biggest issue was that Arnold Schwarzenegger [the governor of California] was talking about legalizing marijuana. The third was for the media, that they stop telling lies and start speaking the truth. Never was there any talk of poverty, violence, war, equality or justice. I once again was disgusted and embarrassed.

So, I would argue that Christendom is alive and well. We are part of the empire and still bending the knee to Caesar. While I do agree that there are deep cracks in Christendom that have been helpful (like the fact that people are only in church now because they want to be as opposed to it being the thing to do to gain social status), we are still very much entrenched in it.

Am I wrong? Am I missing something?

Writer: The Concise Oxford is written by Dion Oxford who, along with his wife, Erinn, and daughter, Cate, live in Toronto, Canada and are committed to journeying alongside people in the margins of society. He and Erinn have spent a combined 30 years working amongst folks who are living on the streets of Toronto. Dion is a recovering Salvationist who currently worships at an evangelical Anglican church but still works for The Salvation Army at the Gateway, a shelter for men experiencing homelessness. He and his wife see the solution to homelessness as the church taking seriously the two great commandments of loving God and loving our neighbour. He likes to read, write, fly kites, cycle long distances, watch TV, play in his band and hang out with his friends.

3 Comments to Concise Oxford | The end of Christendom?

1. It seems to me that Christians at the time of Constantine would have been thanking God for an emperor that was trying to help build churches rather than more inventive means of killing them. We also have to thank Constantine for the possibility of the the oecumenical councils, to which we owe the doctrine of the Trinity, the Creed, the cannon of Holy Scripture and the doctrine of the Incarnation among other things. These things were not decided on under pressure from the emperor, but because it was the first time the Church had to get together to come to a mind on things in several hundred years. Many emperors after Constantine were heretics (there was even one more pagan). Thus, thus faithful often found themselves having to retake Christendom again and again. It was not against Christendom that they fought, but for it, that Christ’s reign on earth might be more perfectly realized in their political life just as in their personal lives. One of the standing rules of most any idea of Christendom is that while one’s leaders (as God’s ministers) must be shown humility and obedience however one can, but that when they command anything that is contrary to the Christian faith they must be resisted to the end. Thomas a Becket is a good example of this as is St. John Chrysostom, St. Athanasius and St. Theodore Studious.

   Also, I live and work in the downtown eastside of vancouver trying to do what I can to help in the perfect storm of poverty, addiction, mental illness and homlessness that we have here. In consequence, I heartily agree that neither the Church or the State shows enough compassion for those who experience these afflictions. Yet I cannot see doctrine as a distraction from these things. Doctrinal violence seems even more serious than physical violence to me, because it has a power to harm and distort the soul that physical violence does not have. There is also the fact that we tend to live out whatever our doctrine is. My general contention is that distorted doctrine leads to distorted love. I would be more inclined to say that our lack of Christian charity meets its reflection in our lack of sound doctrine, than say that doctrine is merely a distraction from works of charity. If anything is characteristic of the theological disputes of our time it is an unwillingness to do anything but stamp the impression of our own will on others, very similar (to my mind) to the way we are willing to be unjust economically and socially to those who visibly suffer in this world precisely when that is what it takes to preserve what we will for ourselves. If we leave off trying to defend our delicate wills all the time and actually seek to be formed by the Holy Spirit in all aspects of our life together, personal and political, sacred and secular we might actually have a chance. Yet I cannot think that doing away with doctrinal dispute is a necessary precursor to this. If the apostles thought it was important enough to have a universal council of the Church about circumcision, who are we to say that disputes over doctrine, of themselves, get in the ways of the Holy Spirit’s work in the Church?
Daniel Watson on June 14th, 2009

2. G’day Dion - I think that the evidence from your masocshistic TV watching is indeed an indicator of the end of Christendom. 50 years ago the churches and the State pretty much agreed on moral and ethical issues such as abortion, homosexuality, marriage, adultery, divorce etc. In most western countries they are no longer in agreement, the moral and ethical norms of church and state have diverged and many Christians struggle to accept this, hoping that by imposing Christian morality on Christian and non-Christian alike they can somwhow help usher in the kingdom of God. I’m not quite sure this is true. Of course it all depends on how you understand ‘Christ and Culture’. Niebuhr’s book still helpfully desribes the five prevalent viewpoints on this.

   Re the Army in the West modifying its practices and aims to ensure continued government fianncial support, that is a clear and present danger (perhaps not a Christendom issue) but rather a result of putting the cart before the horse. We are not good at putting theologically/missiologically wise people in positions of influence in the Army and as a result make decisions from a pragmatic/management point of view (”how can we keep this program going?”) and don’t stop to think through the theological/missiological implications of our actions (”what is the kingdom goal of what we are doing and how can we best achieve it?”).

   Of course I could be wrong on both counts.
   Grant
Grant on June 14th, 2009

3. Christianity stands or falls with its revolutionary protest against violence, arbitrariness, and pride of power, and with its plea for the weak. Christians are doing too little to make these points clear … Christendom adjusts itself far too easily to the worship of power. Christians should give more offense, shock the world far more, than they are doing now.

   - Dietrich Bonhoeffer

   Currently we are falling, sliding perhaps, based on Bonhoeffer’s succinct diagnosis. But for TSA to become the revolutionary organization he describes, it will take a group of leaders whose fear of God is greater than the fear of the ship going down on their watch. Who is willing to risk that? Would we follow them? A grassroots change can only go so far in the organization until those that hold the wheel decide to turn in that direction - and that direction is full of rocks and sandbars, eddies and storms. God give us leaders who have a hope like Augustine described - with anger at the way things are and the courage to see that is does not remain the same.
Gordy on June 16th, 2009

Leave a comment