A Response To Patrick Sullivan

Patrick Sullivan on Facebook writes:

"Was there such a thing as Christian orthodoxy before it was a state religion? Naturally there was a preponderance of this or that, but I could easily imagine a scenario where each occupation and city and ethnicity has its own distinctive brand of Christianity, some more Jewish, some more pagan, and so on. Or was there an organization that stood out as 'the' Church when it came time to wield power on behalf of Rome? I could picture Constantine just sort of casting around for advisors and ending up with a certain crew that /became/ the orthodoxy simply through accidents. A certain bishop happened to be in Byzantium at the time, who thought pictures of saints were cool. Or what have you."

Was there such a thing as Christian orthodoxy before there was a state of religion? Well, yes and no. Christianity begins as a branch of Judaism. Until 70 AD, and then slowly changing until a solidified split takes place in 90 AD, there were no 'Christians'. There were Jesus-following Jews. But Judaism was less a religion and more of a religious movement, highly diverse and fluid. What distinguished Jesus-followers from other Jews was a different in practice more than belief. Jesus took center stage in their worship. Over time, this difference in practice led to more clearly demarcated beliefs as well. 

But from the beginning, these differences in practices were seen to have certain doctrinal consequences, and church leaders were teasing and clarifying those consequences. Paul does this all the time. Whenever people would start suggesting a community believe or promote certain ideas, Paul responded by pointing to the way in which the community worshiped to suggest course corrections. So for instance, when the Corinthians church is challenged because some within it are suggesting there is no resurrection of the dead, Paul questions why that church is baptizing for the dead. He suggests that this practice would be pointless unless the resurrection were a real event, set for the future. 

So there were some broad guidelines to belief that bound the community together, as worship patterns did the same. If something like agreed upon doctrine did not exist, challenges like the gnostic heresy could not have been met. The truth is that most of early Christian writing is to clarify and defend doctrine, doctrine that grew out of practice. Lex orendi, lex credendi... as the people prayed, so they believed. 

But such a limitation still allowed for a very diverse faith. Many details were left open that later would become needlessly closed. When Constantine started calling bishops together to solve problems, he did not just get out of the meetings what a random sampling of church leaders could agree upon. Rather, people's decisions were guided by the actions and behavior of the larger Christian community. For instance, most canonized scriptures were so canonized because they were widely used by Christians already. 

So while the early church had no explicit orthodoxy, it had an implicit orthodoxy because it had certain theologically significant practices it had picked up as a part of its worship. The working out of the implications of these practices took time and the development is complex. But there can be no doubt that much of what developed in later centuries were based on those practices.