Robert M. Grant Chapter Summary

Robert M. Grant was an early church historian and professor at the University of Chicago Divinity School, he was an also an Episcopalian minister. Grant tells the reader in his preface that his work is not so much a history of the early church as it is a “venture into the reconstruction of early Christian practicality. ” According to the author, the book was written to contrast the mythical and romanticize vision of the early church which, too often is associated with accounts of the early church. Grant believes that this is caused by a great divide in study between the sacred and the secular and is a serious mistake , and that, much like issues which concern religious liberty in our world today, the church must be understood and studied in relation to society. His first three studies mirror this conviction; he focuses on topics which bridge the gap between church and state. In this book review I will summarize sections I-III and then evaluate these three sections .

The first section of the book concerns the population of Christians in the Roman Empire. Scholars are interested in the studying the Christian population because it will have an effect upon how scholars study Christianity as a

movement. The population of Christians during the first centuries entails not only the number of Christians, but also the socio-economic details of these early Christians. With all of this in mind, Grant rejects the common theory that Christianity was a mass proletarian movement in the third century but rather he believes Christianity spreads as “a relatively small cluster of more or less intense groups, largely middle class in origin .” Furthermore, Grant teaches that Christianity flourished amongst the aristocracy during the fourth century because of the conversion of Constantine .
This analysis of the Christian population spurs further inquiry into the effect that the state has upon the church. Grant’s thesis is that the structure of the governmental state at this time greatly influenced and had a “practical effect of the church’s gradually becoming a well-organized state within a state .” In other words, the hierarchy of the church is related to the larger state around it. This thesis can be supported by Sacred Scripture, in which, St. Paul, in his first letter to the Corinthians, uses the famous metaphor of the body to articulate the importance of unity within the Church . This extended metaphor of the body is not new in St. Paul’s letter but used throughout ancient literature to express the unity in government, in fact this metaphor is “primarily and essentially political. It becomes Christian only because Paul mentions Christ .” In this example the reader begins to understand that St. Paul, along with other church fathers , view the unity of the Church in light of the political structure at that time. However, it is not only the unity within the Church that mirrors Roman society; it is the hierarchy and structure of the church that most distinctly resembles that of the state. For instance, as the Church grew, ecclesiastical structure was expressed in synods which were very clearly modeled after the assemblies within the empire . Therefore, the unity of the church and the hierarchy of the church are understood to be modeled after the empire.
Finally, the third section of the book is entitled “Taxation and Exemption.” This section is further divided into two vantage points.

First is the Church’s view towards the State and taxes which is best illustrated in the synoptic gospels. The gospel writers repeatedly refer to tax collectors and prostitutes being welcomed at the table of the Lord. Furthermore, Matthew, who was once a tax collector, became one of the twelve apostles. So, not only does Christ invite government officials to join Him at His table, but one of His chosen twelve was a tax collector. From this Grant concludes that the early Christians held absolutely no animosity towards state and taxation, for “Jesus was no enemy of the Roman state and its tax system [and] Christians are not rebels against Rome

.”
The second position that must be explored is the State’s view towards Christianity. The prayers and sacrifices of the Christians were thought to contribute to the wellbeing and prosperity of the state. The State as a whole, therefore, was thought to be benefited greatly from the Church's’ intercession and was indebted to Her, the result therefore being that the Church was not taxed . Unfortunately, the result of this was bishops and priests who sought their positions not for spiritual reasons but rather to escape taxation. On a more positive note, an exemption from taxes enabled churches to flourish and expand. Grant’s thesis in this chapter is that “the power to tax involved not only the power to destroy but also the power to promote social utility .”
Early Christianity and Society is good work insofar as the this book is an answer to what the author has set out to do, namely, to venture into early Christian practicality for the sake of uniting the sacred and secular in search of an accurate picture of the past. Grant’s knowledge of ancient roman culture and insightful scriptural exegesis offers a unique understanding to early Christian culture. However, the work seems to be very one-dimensional because the author attributes every topic introduced to the influence of government. For example, in section I the expansion of Catholicism is accredited to Constantine, in section II the structure of the church is said to be based off of the Roman Empire, and in section III the author concludes that the expansion and success of the church is due to exemption from taxation. All three of these statements attribute some aspect of government to the growth of the Church. In studying history, one’s perspective on reality will almost always color the conclusion of the study; however, one’s perspective should not be blind to the vast array of influences which ought to be taken into consideration when studying history. Grant’s distrust of romanticized history led him to dismiss the supernatural reality that is to be found in church history. For example, Grant attributes the structure of church hierarchy to the roman political system, however, in doing so he fails to even comprehend the implicit truth of the papacy and church order that is found in Sacred Scripture. This example shows that his interpretation leaves out vital information that gives the Church her structure. Grant’s fear of “romantic history” is equivalent to what Blessed John Henry Newman calls the “spontaneous produce of religious feeling under imperfect knowledge. ” This so-called imperfect knowledge or romanticism is not to be feared but rather embraced because these fantastic stories offer proximate descriptions of reality. The significance of these descriptions, which were overlooked by Grant, is articulated by Blessed John Henry Newman:
The cogitative method, as it may be called, of one man is notoriously very different from that of another; of the lawyer from that of the soldier, of the rich from that of the poor. The territory of thought is portioned out in a hundred different ways. Abstractions, generalizations, definitions, propositions, all are framed on distinct standards; and if this is found in matters of this world between man and man, surely much more must exist between the ideas of men and the thoughts, ways and works of God .
Upon reading the first three sections of Grant’s work one is immediately struck by his point of view that the church, namely that Her expansion, Her structure, and Her flourishing was primarily influenced by, and successful because of, the State. The reason for his perspective, as stated in the introduction, is to contrast the romanticized view of the early church. However, due to the fear of romanticizing ancient history Grant neither mentions nor takes into account the Incarnation and Resurrection of Christ and the drastic influence Christ has upon the Church but rather concludes the influence of the state over the influence of Christ. While Grant’s specific supports, use of biblical texts, and historical insight ought to be commended, his narrow perspective actually limits his overall analysis of early Christianity. Therefore, his study is an inadequate account of early Christianity.