The End of the Empire (9)

“Therefore this is what the Lord of armies says: ‘Because you have not obeyed My words, behold, I will send and take all the families of the north,’ declares the Lord, ‘and I will send to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, My servant, and will bring them against this land and against its inhabitants and against all these surrounding nations; and I will ^[a]completely destroy them and make them an object of horror and ^[b]hissing, and an everlasting place of ruins.”  Jeremiah 25:8-9  NASB

Not obeyed – Richard Lim’s analysis of the collapse of rational dialogue and debate at the end of the Roman Empire offers us some insights into today’s political enmity.  But the parallel might not be what you expect.  You see, a case can be made that it was the Church that brought about the collapse of the Empire.  Let me explain.

Under Hellenism debate was considered an essential element of civilization.  After all, the pursuit of truth required investigation, evidence, and argumentation—all based on rationality.  Reason was the watchword of Greek philosophy and reasonable men needed dialogue to sort out the truth.  Unfortunately, this dialectical process threatened consensus.  Lim writes, “this environment of easy-going exchanges threatened the communal solidarity of local groups.”[1]  And no group was more threatened than the emerging Christian religion.  In response to the Manichaeans, Christian theology established borders and normative orthodoxy that precluded debate and demanded faithful adherence to unquestioned doctrine.  Two results ensued.

First, “one camp entered into public debates to advance philosophical knowledge and to establish the truth through a dialectical process of discovery, whereas the other mobilized rhetorical techniques to achieve victory in law courts and political debates. . . . Persuasion, not objective truth, was the professed goal of sophistic argumentation. . . aimed at winning over an audience, not establishing episteme.  The value of a sophistic argument could be judged only by its efficacy in securing victory, which was in turn measured by the extent of public acclaim.”[2]

Second, “Bishops and other Christian authorities no longer had to demonstrate that opponents held heterodox views to impose censure; they had only to prove participation in public theological debate.  Thus resistance to disputation became an issue of the nature of authority in the church . . .”[3]

“The results of Chalcedon became sacrosanct to Chalcedonian Christians, and were guaranteed by imperial law; a law of 455 deemed punishable any discussion or writing contrary to the council’s conclusions.”[4]

In other words, the Church demanded, under threat of governmental punishment, absolute, unquestioning compliance with its dictatorial doctrines, dogmas, and creeds.  Anyone who objected was a heretic, subject to serious reprisals.  In order to prevent social chaos at the close of the Empire, the Church initiated theological tyranny over the population in the name of Truth and God.  And for the next 1000 years, no one dared raise an objection.

Why did this happen, especially in a previous environment of Hellenistic dialectical discussion?  The answer, I believe, is fear.  Rome was falling.  Economic collapse, military incursion, and a decline in the social fabric made people afraid, and fear is a powerful motivator for security at any cost.  The growing ubiquity of the Church and its claim to be the representation of divine truth in the world seemed to offer spiritual security in a world of uncertainty.  Heavenly bliss was guaranteed despite earthly agony if only you believed correctly.  What this meant was “ . . . the unshakable core of religious belief, the kernel of truth that a Christian must accept without question.”[5]  Debate of any kind was a mark of the Devil.  The society was secure—as long as everyone robotically followed the orders of the clergy.  In the end, rational dialogue was sin.

Why do I suggest that the Church was responsible for the collapse of Rome?  Because once rational dialogue is no longer allowed, once anyone of differing opinion is a heretic subject to censure or worse, civilization is finished.  Conformity is not a measure of a strong society.  It is a measure of dictatorial oppression—and no society can last when only one view is allowed.  Rome was an Empire of diversity within the boundaries of accepted dialogue and common values.  The Church assumed Rome’s power but removed its heterogeneity.  It created “insiders” and “outsiders” and for the next fifteen hundred years sent the outsiders to Hell.

One must ask, “Are we not following suit?”  Are we punishing those who disagree, not because they are wrong but simply because they are different?  Have we stopped listening to the other side and now merely shout them down?  Are we the masses afraid of what might happen, willing to turn over our lives to the control of someone else so that we can be relieved of responsibility for the ensuing chaos?  Where is the honor of debate these days?  Why are our politicians more interested in showcase persuasion than rational disputation?  Are we not standing on the edge of a new dictatorship ready to soothe our troubled minds by removing our willingness to think?

Topical Index: Empire, Church, doctrine, heretic, conformity, Jeremiah 25:8-9

[1] Richard Lim, Public Disputation, Power, and Social Order in Late Antiquity (University of California Press, 1995), p. xi.

[2] Ibid., p. 62.

[3] Ibid, p. 227.

[4] Ibid, p. 226.

[5] Ibid, p. 197.