Today's challenge is to provide an avenue for the early Christians to become advocates, theorists, and so and so forth for the ideas of Democracy, and to incorporate it as a major principle of the faith.
AHC: Early Christians as advocates for Democray
- Thread starter Kayin Dreemurr
- Start date
It's unlikely they will be accepted by any emperor and either they change their principles or they get utterly destroyed by the emperor.
The avenue for that is to make them political egalitarians first. The most important scriptures don´t provide much ground for a democratic theory - although ecclesiastical structural practice was relatively democratic in the first centuries -, but they say a lot about the dangers of wealth and praise living without individual property, and let´s not forget that it was anti-racist both in theory (the Good Samaritan) and in practice in the early centuries. So: link Christians up with egalitarian and secessionist movements (for land reform, against slanted taxation, against discriminatory laws and practices). If you can establish a socioeconomically egalitarian Christian polity somewhere, it`ll most likely develop democratic (albeit theocratically democratic) political structures. If the place is not dirt-poor and at least a bit educated, you can have erudite monks, and they can develop your theology of democracy. Its spread would be a highly political thing, of course. But the underclasses across the Roman and Middle Eastern world could catch on like dry wood in a firestorm.
One of its major stepping stones would be changing the contemporary Christian (and not only Christian) view of humanity - from the focus on our sinfulness and imperfection, to a focus on our being images of God. (At least this was what contributed greatly to humanist ideas about human rights and democracy IOTL.)
One of its major stepping stones would be changing the contemporary Christian (and not only Christian) view of humanity - from the focus on our sinfulness and imperfection, to a focus on our being images of God. (At least this was what contributed greatly to humanist ideas about human rights and democracy IOTL.)
Maybe it stays more egalitarian. But once it becomes state religion of the Roman Empire , and major institutions like the Emperordom and the Pontifex Maxius are overtaken, its very hard to develope such principles. Maybe if Christendom overtook a longer remaining republic, it can develope the res publicae and democrizes it ?
Alcsentre Calanice
Gone Fishin'
But if the republic survives, Pilatus will never be born/never become governor of Judaea, so Jesus, if he's born, will never die as he did, and so christianism is doomed if the republic survives.
There's also the fact that the Roman Republic was massively, massively anti-egalitatarian.
The Roman everything was massively anti-egalitarian.
I'm not seeing this work out. I think the closest you're going to get is a widespread rebellion or two - primarily of the lower classes who have bought into the egalitarian communalist message. These rebellions would almost certainly fail and quite possibly get blamed on the Jews.
Or alternatively the religion gets co-opted by the state eventually and the democratic elements are subverted or fall by the wayside.
Or alternatively the religion gets co-opted by the state eventually and the democratic elements are subverted or fall by the wayside.
Alcsentre Calanice
Gone Fishin'
Rome was more egalitarian than most of the other ancient states like Persia or Egypt.
A simple soldier could become emperor, even a slave had, legally, the possibility to acces the highest ranks of Roman society.
jahenders
Banned
True, that basis would need to evolve.
Also, as others noted, this would have to wait until the church was an accepted part of the empire, otherwise it'd be a point of conflict with every government.
Once the church became a major power in the West, it could theoretically subtly lobby for more "inclusiveness" in government. However, the Church was typically somewhat dependent of the good graces of kings and nobles, so can only push so hard. Thus, democratic ideas might be a running idea in the church, but not really pushed.
That being said, there were times where the church was called upon to decide political matters, endorse/condemn certain people practices, etc. It could try to influence things at those points.
For instance, when William got a Papal Bull to invade Anglo-Saxon England, the Pope could have extracted promises from William (or Harold) to be more democratic. Similarly, when Henry VIII wanted a divorce, the Pope could have used democratization as a bargaining chip (we'll give you a divorce if you support certain democratic concepts).
Finally, it's arguable that the early (Catholic) Church itself wasn't really a democratic institution -- people were expected to follow their priest, priests follow cardinals/abbots, everyone the pope, etc. without a lot of "grass roots" input.
Also, as others noted, this would have to wait until the church was an accepted part of the empire, otherwise it'd be a point of conflict with every government.
Once the church became a major power in the West, it could theoretically subtly lobby for more "inclusiveness" in government. However, the Church was typically somewhat dependent of the good graces of kings and nobles, so can only push so hard. Thus, democratic ideas might be a running idea in the church, but not really pushed.
That being said, there were times where the church was called upon to decide political matters, endorse/condemn certain people practices, etc. It could try to influence things at those points.
For instance, when William got a Papal Bull to invade Anglo-Saxon England, the Pope could have extracted promises from William (or Harold) to be more democratic. Similarly, when Henry VIII wanted a divorce, the Pope could have used democratization as a bargaining chip (we'll give you a divorce if you support certain democratic concepts).
Finally, it's arguable that the early (Catholic) Church itself wasn't really a democratic institution -- people were expected to follow their priest, priests follow cardinals/abbots, everyone the pope, etc. without a lot of "grass roots" input.
Actually, before the 4th century, bishops were, in many cases, elected by their communities (although most often from among and proposed by a collegium of church elders, the presbyters), and only then ordained by important neighbouring bishops to maintain the so-called "apostolic succession". Also, the Bishop of Rome was considered a sort of special spiritual authority, but regional dioceses and local communities were not organised top-down from Rome. (That would have been way too cumbersome without state support, too, in that age.)
And even the monepiscopate only evolved throughout the late 2nd and 3rd centuries, replacing more collegial structures. Some sort of hierarchy had always existed, of course, firstly because various groups attempted to impose certain canonisations and clarifications upon others and some succeeded in doing so, secondly because literate, erudite people who could not only read the various holy scriptures, but also say something intelligent about them, were a minority among Christians, and thirdly because there was quite a lot of work to be done: providing charity, organising assemblies, conducting burial, baptism and other rites, and keeping in touch with other communities, all in the context of recurring waves of persecution.
So, Christian communities were, in practice, perhaps the best example of a grassroots structure in their time.
I doubt that a Roman state church would bring forth a democratic theology. Copying the structures of the principate, then the dominate was what eliminated democratic roots and installed top-down hierarchical and coercive structures instead, along with a theology that justified that. Hell, it began with Paul of Tarsus, who urged Christian communities to adapt the hierarchical structures and mindset of the Greco-Roman world, but it took a lot of time and Constantine`s turn to fully implement this orientation.
If Christians were to develop democratic (and egalitarian) ideas more fully, they`d have to build their own alternative polity, in explicit difference to the Empire. Sort of like the polity-building of the Muslims.
Where could this have happened? Arabia, though it is a good geographical niche between the Empires, isn´t a good place to start because of its very tribal structures. Mesopotamia was bound to be crushed between Rome and the Parthians / Sasanians. If greater numbers of Christians got that far for some reason, then OTL Pakistan may have been a possibility. Kushan suzerainty was loose and weakened in the late 2nd/3rd centuries, and there were republican traditions in the region. But that Christian democracy would take on a very Indian touch and could look a lot different from what we might understand as democracy today.
I think there's some potential here with the Donatists. They believed that the sacrament was only valid if the person performing it wasn't sinful, thus requiring a system of ensuring accountability in the long term.
Yep. Also, there was this radical branch of Donatists, the Agonistici, who were militant, egalitarian and political.