A Secular Constantine: WI an Early Separation of Church and State?

[Ming777]

What if Constantine the Great still converted to Christianity, but instead of making it the state religion, simply ended the discrimination of Christians?

However, in this scenario, he is strongly influenced by the statement of Jesus of Nazareth, as written in Matthew 22:21: "Render Unto Caesar's what is Caesar's He and unto God the things that are God's."

He thus ends the State Cult for the Emperor, and declares that religions of any kind should not have a stranglehold on the Empire's daily affairs. In short, he turns the
Roman Empire into a Secular government, with the Emperor to keep his personal religion separate from running the government.

 

[Evil Crusader]

The first. important thing to keep in mind is that Constantine did not make Christianity the state religion nor was it, far from it in fact, having a stranglehold on the Empire's daily affairs: in fact, a whole generation later, Emperor Julian still found enough strength and support in the old religion to be able to stage a full-scale revival (which could have gone fairly well, had he survived his ill-fated Persian campaign) and another twelve years of tolerance followed it without excessive strain.
It's only after that, with Theodosius and his Edict of Thessalonica in 380, that Christianity had finally become state religion and, indeed, played an integral part in the state; but the stranglehold never really happened in the East, and only mildly in the rapidly disgregating West.
Even Constantine's own conversion is actually arguably shallow - only ensured on his deathbed, by an Arian bishop (see below!) and even before, he held a position not unlike Justinian's - the Emperor as the supervisor of the Church, able to command it into obedience when dogmatic adherence threatens state interests. The first Ecumenical Council, at Nicaea, was organized by the Emperor himself for political reasons: to prevent Christian internecine strife from destroying unity, and it's him who punished Arius by banishing him from the state, but it didn't prevent him from recalling him later and easing down to prevent further conflict.

So to answer what seems to be your question - what if Constantine's successors worked towards an early separation of church and state? Well, for sure, cult of the emperor is out - it's by necessity a state religion or nothing at all. Sooner or later, the conflict would have been resolved anyways; and as OTL shows, elites were flocking to the Christian banner, so unless they really tear themselves apart in a true early massive schism, they'd probably claim victory anyways.

 

[AJNolte]

I'd agree with most of Evil crusader's points, though I'm less sanguine about Julian's attempt to role back the position of Christianity; like many of Julian's reforms it was basically an attempt to restore the principate that would not likely have outlived him.

You might actually be able to get there--to some extent--using the Edict of Milan. Heavily influenced by a somewhat less well-known Christian author named Lactantius, the actual text of the Edict is basically full-on religious freedom without the state putting it's thumb on the scale one way or another. The first step back from that, at least according to some reputable historians of antiquity I've read/heard speak on the subject, was in 324, at which point Constantine began to transition toward toleration of, not religious freedom for, pagans.

Frankly, I'm not sure how to prevent this transition. Maybe make Lactantius more prominent, or perhaps have Constantine's victory over his co-emperor be somewhat less complete.

Mind you, there are some real incompatibilities between pagan and Christian morality that won't be easy to just smooth over. On issues from slavery to sexuality to how one ought to treat the poor, differences are profound. Kyle Harper's got too excellent books on these differences. Those differences could cause very very serious problems for a secular Roman government, on top of the OTL problems that are about to hit.

I can recommend a couple of other sources on the Edict of Milan, but they're prohibitively expensive unfortunately. However, PM me and I might be able to help further.

 

[DominusNovus]

St. Ambrose was the founding father of sorts when it came to the western tradition of the separation of Church and State. Hardly a secular figure (at least, after his election).

 

[AJNolte]

St. Ambrose was the founding father of sorts when it came to the western tradition of the separation of Church and State. Hardly a secular figure (at least, after his election).

Of sorts; Ambrose's thing was more asserting church prerogatives over against the state. He's the founding father of the two swords doctrine that would be fully spelled out under Gelasius. I wouldn't call that separation of church and state, though it is the OTL vital first step towards that kind of plurality.

Besides, the west isn't the issue, since the western empire is going to fall under the barbarian invasions, leaving the church as the organizing force in a lot of the west whether it wants to be or not. If you really want a secular Rome, it's got to be done in the east, and that means probably getting the capadocian fathers on board with it. And that's where the moral issues I mentioned come up in a big way.

 

[Timaeus]

What if Constantine the Great still converted to Christianity, but instead of making it the state religion, simply ended the discrimination of Christians?

That is exactly what he did in the Edict of Milan IOTL. It was Theodosius who made it the state religion.

 

[Dragos Cel Mare]

I'd agree with most of Evil crusader's points, though I'm less sanguine about Julian's attempt to role back the position of Christianity; like many of Julian's reforms it was basically an attempt to restore the principate that would not likely have outlived him.

You might actually be able to get there--to some extent--using the Edict of Milan. Heavily influenced by a somewhat less well-known Christian author named Lactantius, the actual text of the Edict is basically full-on religious freedom without the state putting it's thumb on the scale one way or another. The first step back from that, at least according to some reputable historians of antiquity I've read/heard speak on the subject, was in 324, at which point Constantine began to transition toward toleration of, not religious freedom for, pagans.

Frankly, I'm not sure how to prevent this transition. Maybe make Lactantius more prominent, or perhaps have Constantine's victory over his co-emperor be somewhat less complete.

Mind you, there are some real incompatibilities between pagan and Christian morality that won't be easy to just smooth over. On issues from slavery to sexuality to how one ought to treat the poor, differences are profound. Kyle Harper's got too excellent books on these differences. Those differences could cause very very serious problems for a secular Roman government, on top of the OTL problems that are about to hit.

I can recommend a couple of other sources on the Edict of Milan, but they're prohibitively expensive unfortunately. However, PM me and I might be able to help further.

Don't forget Infanticide; Pagans allowed that while Christians were against it.

 

[AJNolte]

Don't forget Infanticide; Pagans allowed that while Christians were against it.

Absolutely; I kind of lumped that under sexuality to some extent, but it deserves a separate treatment.

Basically, the Roman pagan concept of "dignitas" applied to free men of high station was universalized in Christian morality, and infanticide was a very sharp dividing line [and, if you believe Rodney Stark, also a reason for Christianity's demographic improvement].

 

[PhilippeO]

1) what about fanaticism ? monks attacking pagan temple and killing people is common occurrence in christian Roman Empire. for that matter pagan killing priest is happen often at pagan europe. i'm not sure non-modern state is able to put religious violence in check. and expectation that Emperor and governor to favor their co-religionist would be hard to extinguish.

2) There is tendency of one religion become 'dominant religion' and have political justification and support. pre-islamic India have lots minority (jews, christian, buddhism, jain, parsis) but overall its state structure is Hindu. Japan have many shinto shrine, but Buddhism is dominant in pre-Meiji time.

Politics need justification/philosophy/ideology. without philosphy like Liberalism or Confucianism, it would be hard to justify state 'neutrality'. Plus Emperor who non-neutral would have more support during civil wars.

 

[Timaeus]

He thus ends the State Cult for the Emperor, and declares that religions of any kind should not have a stranglehold on the Empire's daily affairs. In short, he turns the
Roman Empire into a Secular government, with the Emperor to keep his personal religion separate from running the government.

And another thing: there is no real line between church and state until Christianity came along. Religion was just as much the domain of emperors as military and administrative affairs, similar to Imperial China. All the legal cults were state religions, which were made to pay homage ultimately to the emperor, who is at once king and high priest, as most monarchies of antiquity were. The temple is as much an extension of government as the military is. This is why Judaism and Christianity were persecuted: in refusing the emperor, they refused the Roman state, and thus all the rights that go with it. And this is why they were accused of atheism.

 

[AJNolte]

1) what about fanaticism ? monks attacking pagan temple and killing people is common occurrence in christian Roman Empire. for that matter pagan killing priest is happen often at pagan europe. i'm not sure non-modern state is able to put religious violence in check. and expectation that Emperor and governor to favor their co-religionist would be hard to extinguish.

2) There is tendency of one religion become 'dominant religion' and have political justification and support. pre-islamic India have lots minority (jews, christian, buddhism, jain, parsis) but overall its state structure is Hindu. Japan have many shinto shrine, but Buddhism is dominant in pre-Meiji time.

Politics need justification/philosophy/ideology. without philosphy like Liberalism or Confucianism, it would be hard to justify state 'neutrality'. Plus Emperor who non-neutral would have more support during civil wars.

A couple of points:
1. Even having a dominant religion didn't noticeably diminish religious violence in the Roman world. During the pagan period, Rome was plagued with perennial Jewish revolts; IIRC the last one was like AD 250. And of course in Christian times, intra-Christian violence between monks was endemic, particularly in Alexandria. The Roman pattern, in both pagan and Christian time periods, was to break enough heads that peace was restored and let the various deities sort'em out. If you had a post-Constantine state that attempted to follow the Edict of Milan more robustly, I'd imagine that pattern would continue.
2. Ironically, Rome was something of a counter-example, in that aside from the fairly generic Emperor cult, there wasn't an over-arching religious structure across the empire. [One interesting divergence would be if the Emperors accepted Tertullian and Origen's claims that Christian prayers for the Emperor and empire were a fitting substitution for imperial sacrifice].

3. Your point on politics/philosophy is definitely well taken. If you're scrapping the imperial cult and not substituting Christianity outright, there's got to be some kind of philosophical underpinning for the state, and the right of the Emperor to rule. With a lowering of the stakes between pagan and Christian, a philosopher like Julian might actually be able to come up with something broadly acceptable to both parties. I do think, though, that to be effective he has to both not apostacize and not become Emperor, and that's a bit of a tall order. However, with an early enough POD, you might be able to get a Julian-like figure.

4. On civil wars and neutrality: that may be true, but it's really hard to say with certainty simply because there was no neutral emperor at this time period whose support in a civil war we can assess. One could probably make a counter-argument that an Emperor on good terms with both Christians and pagans would have gotten more support, not less.

Over all, I agree that the project of a religiously neutral Roman Empire is really difficult to pull off, and you'd need a lot to go right for it to happen. In particular, you'd need a lot of buy-in from religious authorities on both sides. But it is a really interesting intellectual exercise to try and think about how you'd overcome the challenges and actually do it.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

And another thing: there is no real line between church and state until Christianity came along. Religion was just as much the domain of emperors as military and administrative affairs, similar to Imperial China. All the legal cults were state religions, which were made to pay homage ultimately to the emperor, who is at once king and high priest, as most monarchies of antiquity were. The temple is as much an extension of government as the military is. This is why Judaism and Christianity were persecuted: in refusing the emperor, they refused the Roman state, and thus all the rights that go with it. And this is why they were accused of atheism.

Pretty much, yeah. Talk of Constantine coming up with the idea of secularism is anachronistic, since the entire concept of a secular state is completely alien to the classical worldview.

 

[AJNolte]

And another thing: there is no real line between church and state until Christianity came along. Religion was just as much the domain of emperors as military and administrative affairs, similar to Imperial China. All the legal cults were state religions, which were made to pay homage ultimately to the emperor, who is at once king and high priest, as most monarchies of antiquity were. The temple is as much an extension of government as the military is. This is why Judaism and Christianity were persecuted: in refusing the emperor, they refused the Roman state, and thus all the rights that go with it. And this is why they were accused of atheism.

The really funny thing is that, by Roman standards, they were actually trying to accommodate Judaism to an extent that they really didn't for anyone else. It failed rather spectacularly, and probably represents one of the more jarring internal culture clashes in the Roman world.

But, yeah, there's a strong sense in the classical world that religion is a public function of the state. But by Constantine's time you do have embryonic and highly imperfect ideas of religious liberty (libertas religionis in a phrase Tertullian coined) and pluralism within Christianity. The trick is to get the church to really commit hard to these ideas, and reject the old paradigm of fusion between religion and government. There's a brief window--maybe 11 or 12 years--in which, due to the Christian role in drafting the Edict of Milan, that might be possible.

But how you actually change things to make those ideas win out institutionally is the really tricky bit.