It is perfectly true that conflicts between different factions of Christianity have caused much trouble, war and suffering.

You may think Christianity reflects what the Bible says, and that therefore the Bible is to be blamed for all this suffering.

You may be surprised to learn that the driving force behind the church gradually changed from Bible teaching to political expediency.

The book The Medieval Church – a brief history tells us that the church has been involved in politics from the fourth century. It makes two interesting statements:

Between the fourth and sixth centuries, Christianity adapted to being a state church. The transition was not always smooth and there were tensions between the claims of the church and of the state that were never fully resolved. In spite of that, the church entered into a close and lasting alliance with the Roman state.

Since the fourth century Roman Empire, the church had been in alliance with rulers, a situation that was reinforced by the important role that some early medieval rulers had played in the conversion of their people.

The same book also shows how deeply the church became involved in politics:

… the church was the central institution of the European Middle Ages … it was a key actor in the high politics of kings and emperors; it ordered the relations of man and woman, the individual and the group, the ruler and the ruled.

The situation had not changed 65 years later, as is shown by the Chronicle of the World having the following report about the Roman Emperor Theodosius:

Roman Empire, 25 December 390

… one of his first actions after he had established himself in power was to call an Ecumenical Council in Constantinople in 381 to unite the Church.

The Chronicle of the World reveals the real motives and character of Theodosius in the following report:

Italy, 391

Theodosius, born in Spain, the son of an army general, has needed all his military skills to defeat his rivals for the imperial purple and hold the splitting empire together. After killing usurpers and puppets, as he calls them, he has reunited the empires of east and west.

Again it is clear that political motives were more important than what the Bible says.

The book The Medieval Church – a brief history also shows how the political desire for a united church was more important than Bible teaching:

Christianity is very prone to split over disputes concerning belief, organisation and discipline. Constantine and his successors discovered that religious unity was difficult to achieve. They were repeatedly drawn by personal conviction and by political necessity to try to preserve the unity of Catholic Christianity, especially when serious disputes broke out in the fourth and fifth centuries concerning the nature of Christ and the nature of the Trinity.

This quotation shows that “personal conviction” and “political necessity” were more important than Bible teaching.

The church as a political force

The Times Atlas of World History makes it clear that the church soon became a political force. Talking of the sixth century it says:

… when Rome succumbed to barbarian attack, the Church and its bishops, with their vast estates and pervasive influence … guided Europe, as well as Christendom, into the new age.

Pope Gregory VII in 1075 showed the political aims of the popes. Chronicle of the World gives the following imaginary newspaper report:

Rome, April 1075

Pope Gregory VII is making a strong bid to establish the primacy of the papacy and its authority over kings and princes as well as archbishops. Dictatus Papae (Sayings of the Pope) contains 27 short and pithy sentences which leave no doubt at all where the ultimate authority lies. The assertions include “That he [the pope] alone may use the imperial insignia”; “That he may depose emperors, that he himself may be judged by no one”. … Gregory sees the papacy primarily as a governmental institution which must be backed by laws.

It is clear from these quotations that the church became a very powerful political force exerting its influence at the highest political levels. The result of this was that the church became involved in political and religious disputes which often led to conflict and war. The principle of non-aggression that we considered at the start was not very much in evidence.

A quotation from World History shows how the church exercised its political influence in promoting war:

The Pope declared that Christian kings had a right to conquer heathen lands. Some Catholic friars and, later, Jesuits did identify with the cause of the native people, but even their mission stations were instruments of colonial control.

The crusades which began in 1095 are a good example of the church becoming involved in war. The book World History tells us:

In 1095 the Byzantine emperor appealed to the pope for assistance against the Turks. The pope answered the call by preaching a Holy War.

The result was much bloodshed and suffering spread over many years.

World History also tells us that the popes were little different from politicians. Talking of the fifteenth century we are told:

… the pope ruled the Papal States as any other temporal monarch, and involved himself in the politics of the peninsula… During this period the lifestyle of the popes was little different from that of any other monarch. They led troops into battle, promoted family interests, including those of their children, and built themselves enormous monuments.

When the Protestant churches appeared in the sixteenth century, they became equally involved in politics and conflict. The Chronicle of the World has the following report:

Germany, 1614

All Europe is holding its breath as the German princes – Catholics and Protestants alike – prepare for a war which threatens to engulf the whole continent.

The war actually began in 1618 and resulted in 30 years of fighting between Catholics and Protestants.

The decisions made by the church that caused the conflicts were political. The principle of showing love to all and of non-aggression that we considered earlier was obviously ignored.