| Christendom |
| Christendom |
Time frame: From Constantine’s edict of AD 313 to
the present although some / many feel that
Christendom (not the church) died long ago.
1. Met in buildings. Buildings central to the church.
Church and state together held the reigns of power.
2. Leadership was now hierarchical top down
leadership (ie Pope, Bishops, Clergy)
3. Church now an institution - not a movement.
Multiple buildings
4. Communion becomes institutional practice (not a
meal)
5. Church is/was center of society and has/had
authority alongside the king or emperor or
government.
6. Church now has attractional model. Attendance is
almost required or expected to be part of society in
early period. Later, especially after the reformation,
this need to be part of church, to be part of society
declines..
the present although some / many feel that
Christendom (not the church) died long ago.
1. Met in buildings. Buildings central to the church.
Church and state together held the reigns of power.
2. Leadership was now hierarchical top down
leadership (ie Pope, Bishops, Clergy)
3. Church now an institution - not a movement.
Multiple buildings
4. Communion becomes institutional practice (not a
meal)
5. Church is/was center of society and has/had
authority alongside the king or emperor or
government.
6. Church now has attractional model. Attendance is
almost required or expected to be part of society in
early period. Later, especially after the reformation,
this need to be part of church, to be part of society
declines..
Christendom could be simply defined as the body of Christians throughout the world. But it is also used to describe
the polity of Christianity as it relates to the state. For the first several hundred years Christianity existed on the
margins of society. Often persecuted and misunderstood it had no visible buildings but met in homes sometimes
secretly.
However after Constantine’s edict in AD 313 Christianity was no longer an illegal religion. It soon became the
religion of the state. It is this combined church state relation that is refereed to as Christendom. This change is
interpreted in different ways depending on the faith tradition one comes from. It is the ‘triumph of the church’ in the
Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions. It is the called the ‘great betrayal’ in the Anabaptist tradition.
And it is something in-between to the protestant tradition. Whatever you call it, it transformed the church in
fundamental ways.
This is a very brief overview. For details on Christendom from a Catholic perspective see this site. For a view of
Christendom from an Anabaptist perspective see this site. For a detailed church history see this site To dig deeper
see below.
Christendom .. Digging Deeper
the polity of Christianity as it relates to the state. For the first several hundred years Christianity existed on the
margins of society. Often persecuted and misunderstood it had no visible buildings but met in homes sometimes
secretly.
However after Constantine’s edict in AD 313 Christianity was no longer an illegal religion. It soon became the
religion of the state. It is this combined church state relation that is refereed to as Christendom. This change is
interpreted in different ways depending on the faith tradition one comes from. It is the ‘triumph of the church’ in the
Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions. It is the called the ‘great betrayal’ in the Anabaptist tradition.
And it is something in-between to the protestant tradition. Whatever you call it, it transformed the church in
fundamental ways.
This is a very brief overview. For details on Christendom from a Catholic perspective see this site. For a view of
Christendom from an Anabaptist perspective see this site. For a detailed church history see this site To dig deeper
see below.
Christendom .. Digging Deeper
Time frame: From Christ’s death and resurrection until
Constantine’s edict in AD 313.
1. Church people met in homes. No buildings dedicated
for church work although they may have used meeting
halls on occasion
2. Leadership was five fold: Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist.
Pastor, Teacher
3. No central institutional structure. Multiple house
churches. Grass roots structure.
4. Communion was a meal where the community came
together
5. Church was not central to society. Operated in the
margins and was often persecuted
6. Grew through church plants (not building plants).
Incarnational / missional model.
Constantine’s edict in AD 313.
1. Church people met in homes. No buildings dedicated
for church work although they may have used meeting
halls on occasion
2. Leadership was five fold: Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist.
Pastor, Teacher
3. No central institutional structure. Multiple house
churches. Grass roots structure.
4. Communion was a meal where the community came
together
5. Church was not central to society. Operated in the
margins and was often persecuted
6. Grew through church plants (not building plants).
Incarnational / missional model.
| The Christendom Period |
| Apostolic Model |
Look at the two columns above. Some may be wondering......
“Why did the church model change to attractional?” ..... “How is this related to church history?”
Before Constantine’s edict, Christianity was illegal. Christians could not meet publicly for fear of retribution.
Christians met in secret. Therefore, there could be no buildings and church was the body of Christ – church was
wherever Christians gathered. The attractional model could not happen because you would be making a public appeal
to a society where Christianity was illegal. This is similar to doing Church work in countries today where you can be
killed for being a Christian. Obviously you do not put out fliers telling where and when your next church service will
be. However, many have observed that when the church was in this pre-Christendom mode it grew exponentially.
Similar growth is often seen today in countries where the church is an underground illegal movement.
When Constantine made Christianity legal all of this changed. A cooperative relationship formed between church and
state. This went so far as church leaders blessing/crowning the emperor. This might seem strange to us in the West
today. Additionally, now that Christianity was not illegal, public buildings could be built. The tie between church and
state was so strong that membership in church was almost expected, if you wanted to be a good citizen. Church and
state were the center of society and authority. A parallel to this is in Old Testament times where kings looked to
religious prophets to back them up. This put considerable stress on the prophet especially if he had an unpopular
message to give to the king. Similarly in this time frame, political leaders looked for affirmation from the religious
leaders of Christianity which at that time would have been the pope. Coming from the other side, if the church
declared something / or someone heretical they had the authority of the state to back them up. This cooperative
relationship between religion and government still exists in many countries today. In some countries the salary of the
Christian pastor is paid by the state.
So the atttractional model has its roots in the history of the church. But times have changed. Church is not center
nor are we tied as we once were so tightly to the state. Where that tie still exists church attendance is often waning
rather than increasing. Thus the call for a new model. As can be seen in the diagram below.
The proposed model is a missional model. If you compare it to the Apostolic model you can see much similarity The
Apostolic model is where the church experienced the most growth. This new model may include non-professional (not
trained in seminary) leadership. Different models of post-Christendom church may not include all the items listed.
For some, this model is a call to return to the house church model. For many non-christians who are suspicious of the
church (in buildings) this can be helpful. Rather than individuals going to a “church service” they are simply coming
to someone's home to find out what this funny thing called “Christianity” is. The home a person comes to is not
looked on as a church but rather just a place they have visited many times before for regular neighborhood stuff. In
this model: "My neighbor is a Christian.” not “My neighbor is a church.” The house church is small and intimate
and friendships have already formed from being neighbors or coworkers or members of the same bowling league, etc..
This is but one possible expression of the new model. For greater insight into this and an explanation of the roles of
the five fold ministry click here.
This Christendom discussion brings up a second question which I will tread rather lightly on. The question is: What is
the role of the church in politics? There are two views on this.... One view is that we as Christians should push to
enact laws that criminalize whatever the bible calls sin. This is how we operated in the Christendom era. The other
view is that we should seek to live at peace with our society and not push our views on others and only rally behind
moral ideals that society generally supports. Part of the reasoning for this view is that when our politics or political
method is hostile to the people we are trying to reach it hurts our ability to reach them with the gospel of Christ.
(Example: Its hard to say 'Jesus loves you' to the illegal immigrant if you are reporting them to immigration
services.) As a side note it is worth noting that while we typically don’t look favorably on civil libertarian organizations
such as the ACLU, it is the very facts of church history that drive these organizations to some extent. It has been said
that those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. It would do well for those of us who are
Christians to remember that our involvement in the affairs of the state has not always been for the good. In recent
church history some (but not all) churches / denominations have used their authority to oppose abolition, oppose
desegregation, and oppose laws that give woman equal rights. Other churches / denominations have supported these
ideals. There are more examples than this but I think this is sufficient. Alternately, with the other view the question
is raised of whether we should sit back and do nothing and allow society to (in our Christian view) spiral downward
away from God’s will and God’s way. Along with this is the concern that God might judge our nation if we do not
create laws that support His precepts. This issue of politics is a difficult question which Christians have different
opinions about. I am not trying to convince you one way or another. I do hope that this short discussion will promote
a better understanding of different viewpoints. However you feel about this, having a different view of what the
churches role is does not make the other view evil. Nor does it make them un-biblical. They are simply using
different biblical principles to guide their politics than you are. No religious person is truly unguided by their belief
system in politics. Even if one’s belief is to keep religion out of politics they still are practicing political action or
inaction based on their beliefs.
The practical part (or perhaps impractical part) of this whole discussion of a new church model is trying to find people
that want to do it. We love our youth programs and our children’s programs. We love our church family. Venturing
into the unknown is not appealing. So what do you do if you are one of those who wants to do this or God is calling to
do this? For an attempt to answer this question see my page on the missional incarnational Christian.
For books for further study see the Missional Resource page.
Return to Home Page
Apostolic model is where the church experienced the most growth. This new model may include non-professional (not
trained in seminary) leadership. Different models of post-Christendom church may not include all the items listed.
For some, this model is a call to return to the house church model. For many non-christians who are suspicious of the
church (in buildings) this can be helpful. Rather than individuals going to a “church service” they are simply coming
to someone's home to find out what this funny thing called “Christianity” is. The home a person comes to is not
looked on as a church but rather just a place they have visited many times before for regular neighborhood stuff. In
this model: "My neighbor is a Christian.” not “My neighbor is a church.” The house church is small and intimate
and friendships have already formed from being neighbors or coworkers or members of the same bowling league, etc..
This is but one possible expression of the new model. For greater insight into this and an explanation of the roles of
the five fold ministry click here.
This Christendom discussion brings up a second question which I will tread rather lightly on. The question is: What is
the role of the church in politics? There are two views on this.... One view is that we as Christians should push to
enact laws that criminalize whatever the bible calls sin. This is how we operated in the Christendom era. The other
view is that we should seek to live at peace with our society and not push our views on others and only rally behind
moral ideals that society generally supports. Part of the reasoning for this view is that when our politics or political
method is hostile to the people we are trying to reach it hurts our ability to reach them with the gospel of Christ.
(Example: Its hard to say 'Jesus loves you' to the illegal immigrant if you are reporting them to immigration
services.) As a side note it is worth noting that while we typically don’t look favorably on civil libertarian organizations
such as the ACLU, it is the very facts of church history that drive these organizations to some extent. It has been said
that those who do not learn the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them. It would do well for those of us who are
Christians to remember that our involvement in the affairs of the state has not always been for the good. In recent
church history some (but not all) churches / denominations have used their authority to oppose abolition, oppose
desegregation, and oppose laws that give woman equal rights. Other churches / denominations have supported these
ideals. There are more examples than this but I think this is sufficient. Alternately, with the other view the question
is raised of whether we should sit back and do nothing and allow society to (in our Christian view) spiral downward
away from God’s will and God’s way. Along with this is the concern that God might judge our nation if we do not
create laws that support His precepts. This issue of politics is a difficult question which Christians have different
opinions about. I am not trying to convince you one way or another. I do hope that this short discussion will promote
a better understanding of different viewpoints. However you feel about this, having a different view of what the
churches role is does not make the other view evil. Nor does it make them un-biblical. They are simply using
different biblical principles to guide their politics than you are. No religious person is truly unguided by their belief
system in politics. Even if one’s belief is to keep religion out of politics they still are practicing political action or
inaction based on their beliefs.
The practical part (or perhaps impractical part) of this whole discussion of a new church model is trying to find people
that want to do it. We love our youth programs and our children’s programs. We love our church family. Venturing
into the unknown is not appealing. So what do you do if you are one of those who wants to do this or God is calling to
do this? For an attempt to answer this question see my page on the missional incarnational Christian.
For books for further study see the Missional Resource page.
Return to Home Page
Time frame: From Christ’s death and
resurrection until Constantine’s edict
in AD 313.
1. Church people met in homes. No
buildings dedicated for church work
although they may have used meeting
halls on occasion
2. Leadership was five fold: Apostle,
Prophet, Evangelist. Pastor, Teacher
3. No central institutional structure.
Multiple house churches. Grass roots
structure.
4. Communion was a meal where the
community came together
5. Church was not central to society.
Operated in the margins and was
often persecuted
6. Grew through church plants (not
building plants). Incarnational /
missional model.
resurrection until Constantine’s edict
in AD 313.
1. Church people met in homes. No
buildings dedicated for church work
although they may have used meeting
halls on occasion
2. Leadership was five fold: Apostle,
Prophet, Evangelist. Pastor, Teacher
3. No central institutional structure.
Multiple house churches. Grass roots
structure.
4. Communion was a meal where the
community came together
5. Church was not central to society.
Operated in the margins and was
often persecuted
6. Grew through church plants (not
building plants). Incarnational /
missional model.
Time frame: From Constantine’s
edict of AD 313 to the present
although many feel that Christendom
(not the church) died long ago.
1. Met in buildings. Buildings central
to the church. Church and state
together held the reigns of power.
2. Leadership was now hierarchical
top down leadership (ie Pope,
Bishops, Clergy)
3. Church now an institution - not a
movement. Multiple buildings
4. Communion becomes institutional
practice (not a meal)
5. Church is/was center of society and
has/had authority alongside the king
or emperor or government.
6. Church now has attractional
model. Attendance is almost required
or expected to be part of society in
early period. Later, especially after
the reformation, this need to be part
of church, to be part of society
declines..
edict of AD 313 to the present
although many feel that Christendom
(not the church) died long ago.
1. Met in buildings. Buildings central
to the church. Church and state
together held the reigns of power.
2. Leadership was now hierarchical
top down leadership (ie Pope,
Bishops, Clergy)
3. Church now an institution - not a
movement. Multiple buildings
4. Communion becomes institutional
practice (not a meal)
5. Church is/was center of society and
has/had authority alongside the king
or emperor or government.
6. Church now has attractional
model. Attendance is almost required
or expected to be part of society in
early period. Later, especially after
the reformation, this need to be part
of church, to be part of society
declines..
Time frame: Now. The listing below
expresses one possible view of what part
of the church may be trying to become,
although most of church is still
operating in Christendom mode
1. Not focused on the need for buildings.
2. Leadership seeks a return to model
of Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist, Pastor,
Teacher. This is a non-institutional
model.
3. No central institutional structure.
Multiple house churches. Grass roots
structure.
4. A greater emphasis on symbols and
sometimes on ritual.
5. Church not central to society.
Operates in the margins. Looks
different from what culture expects and
even from what church people expect.
6. Grows through church plants (not
building plants) Possible return to
house church model.. Incarnational /
missional model.
expresses one possible view of what part
of the church may be trying to become,
although most of church is still
operating in Christendom mode
1. Not focused on the need for buildings.
2. Leadership seeks a return to model
of Apostle, Prophet, Evangelist, Pastor,
Teacher. This is a non-institutional
model.
3. No central institutional structure.
Multiple house churches. Grass roots
structure.
4. A greater emphasis on symbols and
sometimes on ritual.
5. Church not central to society.
Operates in the margins. Looks
different from what culture expects and
even from what church people expect.
6. Grows through church plants (not
building plants) Possible return to
house church model.. Incarnational /
missional model.
| The Christendom Period |
| Apostolic Model |
| Proposed Model |
Missional Church