It would not be surprising if Latins think first of all of the persecution of Christians in Rome in connection with its eventual conversion. But in considering the historic relations between Christians and their pagan neighbors, and to what degree they co-existed, does Rome give us a representative picture of what was happening elsewhere in the Roman Empire? And was it truly the case that Rome converted because the blood of martyrs is the seed of faith? Or because of the rise of the "Constantinian Church" and the subsequent declaration of Christianity as the official religion of the empire, along with the outlawing of other religions? Is this pattern of apparent conversion replicated elsewhere, with the conversion of tribes and kingdoms? And should we really consider that a viable model of evangelization? After all the persecutions (and martyrdom) of Christians in China, Korea, and Japan, for example, has not had similar results yet; and Christians not having the reins of state in these polities is not an insignificant difference. Even if we think of Mexico converting not because of the prestige and power of the Church under the Spanish but because of the intervention of Our Lady of Guadalupe, what about the rest of Ibero-America?
A Church of the Many or a Church of the Few? Louis Bouyer's question remains relevant today, especially with the latest Apostolic Exhortation repeating the calls of previous pontificates for a new evangelization.
No comments:
Post a Comment