The extension of the Christian religion generally followed the history of the Roman empire. It is certainly a difficult pill for many a Christian theologian to swallow, knowing that the final doctrinal pronouncements made by the early church and stated within the creeds were inseparably related to and pretty much indistinguishable from the political and economic concerns of the Roman empire. Even the Christological language of the one essence, which subsequently defined the relationships between the Father and the Son, and between the Son and humanity (Nicaea and Chalcedon) was itself introduced and enforced by the emperor Constantine. The emperor no doubt held significant sway over the affairs of the church (both economic and theological), and likewise, the bishops (and eventually the popes) had plenty of opportunity to influence the politics and economics of the empire. Simply stated, those doctrinal formulations which would eventually come to be defined within the church as the orthodox position corresponded with, furthered the agenda of, and were enforced by the Roman empire.
Although the connection between Christ and the empire stretches back to times prior to the rule of Constantine (even back to Paul as we have recently observed) it is usually his reign which marks (for many) the inauguration of the imperial perversion of the church. It was Constantine’s conviction that the Christian God had granted him a military victory over his former co-emperor Licinius which resulted in his becoming the sole emperor of Rome. The council of Nicaea was planned just after this military victory and it was supposed to be a celebration of the liberation of Christianity and of the unified empire under Christ. Thus Arianism was probably not the main reason and was definitely not the only reason for which the Nicaean council had convened, though the controversy no doubt would have been viewed as a threat to the newly established imperial unity. The council was funded entirely by Constantine (including travel expenses for the bishops). He also set the agenda for the council and chaired the meetings. The majority of the bishops probably held to some sort of semi-Arianism. There was also a minority representation of the full-blown Arian position in attendance. Constantine suggested the term (homoousia) which eventually won out, even though this position represented none of the parties involved. The fact that the overwhelming majority of the bishops signed off on homoousia reveals just how influential the emperor was in the determination of orthodoxy.
Imperial unity was the chief motivating factor behind the convening of both Nicaea and Chalcedon, and both councils bear witness to the ever-increasing integration of ecclesial and imperial authority. Cultural cohesion was sought at Nicaea through the institution of a common date for Easter for both east and west. The conclusions of Chalcedon are usually viewed as the middle-road between Pope Leo’s emphasis on the two natures of Christ, and Cyril of Alexandria’s monistic tendencies. At Chalcedon, the hierarchy of the church was strengthened when the monasteries were placed under the control of the bishops, in order to blunt the anarchical spirit of the monks. Also, those whom the church had declared heretics were physically banished from the empire. Bishops were involved at the highest levels of imperial governance, and often maintained their status by means of oppression, violence, and bribery. Cyril of Alexandria actually shut down the churches of the rival Novations and appropriated their wealth for his own cause, sent mobs to plunder the Jewish quarters, had the politically influential non-Christian philosopher Hypatia stoned to death, and utilized the church’s vast monetary resources to ensure the support of emperor Theodosius II and hence the acceptance of Cyril’s Christology at the council of Ephesus in 431. The fact of the matter is that politics and economics played an uncomfortably vital role in the formulation of early orthodox Christology.
