When and How Did Christianity Go Off The Rails?

This is an excerpt from a chapter of my book Real Xians - The Gospel Of The Kingdom of God Manifesto

When and How Did Christianity Go Off the Rails ?

Christianity began with Jesus and His small group of followers, preaching the good news of the Kingdom of God. The early Ekklesia - The Kingdom of God - was marked by simplicity, a communal lifestyle, and a clear focus on the teachings of Christ. However, by the end of the first century AD, certain developments began to alter the course of this movement. 

One of the most significant shifts occurred when clergy positions became professionalized, and Ekklesia/church leadership began to receive compensation. This shift moved the church away from its humble, servant-based roots and towards a hierarchical structure. The process was further intensified in the 4th century when Christianity became the official state religion under Constantine, blending the faith with political power. 

The earliest followers of Jesus were a small and often persecuted group. Acts 2:42-47 describes the early Christian community: 

Acts 2

42 And they devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. 43 And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. 44 And all who believed were together and had all things in common. 45 And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need. 46 And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they received their food with glad and generous hearts, 47 praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.

This paints a picture of an Ekklesia/church/Kingdom focused on mutual care and voluntary service, not on professional leadership or institutional power.

During this time, the leadership of the church was based on personal maturity, not official titles or salaried positions. Paul, writing to the Ekklesia/church in Corinth, made it clear that he did not demand payment for his ministry, even though he had the right to do so: 

1 Corinthians 9

“If others share the right over you, do we not more? Nevertheless, we did not use this right, but we endure all things so that we will cause no hindrance to the gospel of Christ” 

Paul’s approach reflects a spirit of voluntary service, not professionalized ministry.

The Professionalization of the Clergy

By the late first century and into the second century, the church began to develop a more structured hierarchy, with bishops, elders, and deacons emerging as official titles. Initially, these leaders served voluntarily and were selected based on their character and ability to teach. However, over time, the position of clergy became professionalized, with some leaders receiving compensation for their work. This shift signified a move away from the original spirit of service and towards an institutional model of leadership.

One early church historian, Eusebius, writing in the early 4th century, commented on this shift: “At that time bishops, presbyters, and deacons did not think of gaining their living from the Gospel. They preferred to spend their time in labors of love and charity.” However, as the church grew in size and influence, financial support for clergy became more common, and the role of leadership began to attract individuals seeking prestige or financial gain.

The early church father Tertullian criticized this trend, noting in the early 3rd century: “For we ought to be ashamed, if we make a profit out of our poverty, and traffic in selling the gifts of God.” Tertullian saw the growing trend of paying clergy as a betrayal of the church’s original calling to be a community marked by simplicity and sacrificial service.

Corruption of Clergy as a Profession

The professionalization of the clergy not only changed the dynamic within local churches but also contributed to a growing divide between clergy and laity. As leadership positions became more formalized and compensated, the role of the clergy began to be seen as a profession rather than a calling. This created a distinction between “holy” men of the cloth and ordinary believers, undermining the idea of the “priesthood of all believers” 

1 Peter 2

9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a consecrated nation, a [special] people for God’s own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies [the wonderful deeds and virtues and perfections] of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light. 

By the end of the second century, the distinction between clergy and laity was firmly established, and bishops were often viewed as regional authorities, wielding significant influence over church doctrine and practice. This professionalization was the first major step that took the church off course, creating a power dynamic that was foreign to the early Christian Kingdom.

Constantine and the Pagan State Church

The next significant turning point in Christian history occurred in the 4th century, during the reign of Constantine the Great. Before Constantine’s conversion, Christianity was a self sustained Kingdom, often facing persecution from the Roman Empire. However, Constantine’s Edict of Milan in AD 313 granted Christianity legal status and freedom from persecution. This was a monumental shift for the church, which had lived for centuries in opposition to The State and it’s pagan religions.

While the end of persecution was a relief for many Christians, Constantine’s adoption of Christianity as the state religion had far-reaching consequences. The church moved from being a servant Kingdom married to Christ as its King to a favored institution married to the Roman Empire. 

Constantine’s influence on Christianity went beyond political protection; he instituted the political ideology known as Caesaropapism (the idea of combining the social and political power of secular government with religious power), he actively involved himself in theological debates, convening the Council of Nicaea in AD 325 to settle disputes within the church.

With Constantine’s support, the church gained wealth, power, and influence, but at a great cost. Historian Edward Gibbon, in his work The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, famously wrote: “The ruin of paganism, in the eyes of a rational observer, is perhaps the most important event in the history of the Roman Empire. But the Christians, who had so long fought and suffered in the cause of truth and freedom, insensibly relaxed their zeal.” Gibbon recognized that while Constantine’s conversion seemed to be a victory for Christianity, it actually marked the beginning of the church’s entanglement with political power, leading to its decline.

The Danger of State Power

As Christianity became the official religion of the Pagan Roman Empire under Theodosius I in AD 380, the church’s identity became inseparable from pagan state authority. No longer was the church a countercultural force speaking truth to power; it had become part of the pagan political establishment. This entanglement with the pagan state brought immense wealth and privilege to church leaders but also corruption and compromise. The church, once persecuted for its radical allegiance to Christ, now enjoyed the backing of pagan imperial power.

Theologian Augustine of Hippo may have recognized the danger of this shift, writing in his seminal work City of God: “The earthly city glorifies in itself, the heavenly city glories in the Lord.” Augustine warned that the church must never confuse the Kingdom of God with pagan power structures. Yet by aligning with the pagan Roman Empire, the church had, in effect, done just that.

The Long-Term Consequences

The fusion of Ekklesia/The called out Kingdom of God to The State fundamentally changed the nature of Christianity. What had once been a servant Kingdom defined by love, sacrifice, and service became increasingly hierarchical and political. Church offices became positions of power and influence, and disputes over doctrine were often settled not by biblical argument but by imperial decree.

This blending of Christianity with the political machinery of Rome laid the foundation for centuries of corruption, from the medieval papacy to the Crusades. The institutional church, born from this union of faith and empire, became an entity often more concerned with maintaining power than with advancing the teachings of Christ.

John Chrysostom, a 4th-century church father, lamented the corruption he saw in the church, saying, “The roads that once were crowded with monks are now teeming with riotous crowds of soldiers and secular officials. The church has changed into something different.” Chrysostom’s words reflect the profound transformation that had taken place by his time—Christianity, once a Kingdom of humble service, had become entangled with the powers of the pagan world.

The professionalization of the clergy and the church’s adoption as a pagan state religion marked two of the most significant moments when Christianity began to go off the rails. These shifts moved the church away from its humble beginnings and toward an institutionalized, hierarchical, and politically-entangled form of what it had always taught against. The teachings of Christ, which called for radical service, humility, and allegiance to God, became overshadowed by the pursuit of power, prestige, and influence.

If the Ekklesia is to reclaim its original identity, it must remember the words of Jesus: “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). The church must reject the entanglement with “the pagan world” and  lure of political power and the temptation to turn ministry into a profession for personal gain. Only by returning to the simplicity and servant-heartedness of the early church/Kingdom can Christianity once again become the transformative force it was meant to be.

The Rise and Transformation of Church Authority

Church authority has been a central topic of debate since the earliest days of Christianity. In its beginnings, the authority of the church was rooted in the teachings of Christ and the apostolic tradition, with leaders chosen based on their Biblical maturity and ability to serve the community. However, over time, the nature and structure of church authority changed dramatically, leading to a hierarchical system that became increasingly institutionalized and centralized. 

Early Church Authority: A Model of Servant Leadership

In the New Testament, church leadership is portrayed as a form of servant leadership, modeled after Jesus’ own example. Luke 22:25-27 captures this ethic: 

Luke 2225 And he said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those in authority over them are called benefactors. 26 But not so with you. Rather, let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves. 27 For who is the greater, one who reclines at table or one who serves? Is it not the one who reclines at table? But I am among you as the one who serves.

The early apostles and elders led through example, love, and humility, following Jesus’ instructions. Peter, one of the chief apostles, instructed other leaders: 

1 Peter 5

2 shepherd and guide and protect the flock of God among you, exercising oversight not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God; and not [motivated] for shameful gain, but with wholehearted enthusiasm; 3 not lording it over those assigned to your care [do not be arrogant or overbearing], but be examples [of Christian living] to the flock.

The New Testament presents a model of shared leadership among elders, and deacons. Authority was decentralized, with each local congregation having its own leadership structure, and decisions were made collectively. In Acts 15, for instance, the church in Jerusalem gathered the apostles and elders to discuss matters of doctrine, demonstrating a form of early church governance based on consensus and spiritual discernment, not coercive power.

The Shift Toward Hierarchy

By the end of the first century, this early model of servant leadership began to change. As the church grew and faced increasing external threats—such as persecution and heresy—the role of bishops (overseers) gained more prominence. While originally bishops were seen as spiritual overseers, they gradually became figures of centralized authority. The writings of Ignatius of Antioch, an early church father, reflect this shift. Ignatius emphasized the role of bishops as key figures in maintaining unity and orthodoxy within the church, writing, “Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop” (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8:1).

Ignatius' emphasis on episcopal authority laid the groundwork for a more hierarchical church structure. By the second century, the bishop began to wield considerable power over both doctrine and discipline within the church, creating a divide between clergy and laity.

The emergence of monarchical bishops—those who governed single cities and regions—marked a significant departure from the Biblical model of shared, communal leadership. This shift was driven in part by the church's desire for stability and uniformity, but it also reflected a growing trend toward institutionalization.

The Institutionalization of Church Authority

As Christianity became more organizational, the distinction between clergy and laity became sharper. The development of a formalized clergy class, with bishops at the top, changed the way authority was exercised. Church offices became positions of power.

By the third century, the church began to mirror the Roman imperial system in its organization. Bishops in major cities—such as Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria—began to exert influence not only over their local congregations but over wider regions. Cyprian of Carthage, a prominent 3rd-century bishop, argued for a strong, unified episcopate, declaring that “The bishop is in the church and the church is in the bishop, and if anyone is not with the bishop, he is not in the church” (Letters, 66.8). Cyprian’s view reflected the growing centrality of bishops in church life and governance, further entrenching hierarchical authority.

By the time Constantine legalized Christianity in the early 4th century, the church was already moving towards a more formal and centralized authority structure. Constantine’s support for Christianity further accelerated this process, as the church now found itself closely aligned with the Roman state. Bishops, once spiritual overseers, now held political power, and the church's authority began to reflect the bureaucratic and hierarchical structure of the Roman Empire.

The Rise of the Papacy: Ultimate Centralization of Authority

The growing influence of bishops eventually led to the rise of the papacy. By the 5th century, the Bishop of Rome began to assert supremacy over other bishops, claiming a special status based on the apostolic succession from Peter. Leo I, who served as pope from AD 440 to 461, was instrumental in consolidating papal authority. He declared that the pope had supreme authority over the entire Christian church, writing, “The care of the universal Church should converge toward Peter’s one seat, and nothing anywhere should be separated from its Head” (Letter 10).

The papacy represented the ultimate centralization of church authority, and over time, popes wielded immense church and political power. This was a far cry from the decentralized, communal leadership model of the early church. The pope, as the supreme authority of Christendom, became a powerful political figure, more concerned with preserving his positional influence than with any servant leadership.

The centralization of authority in the papacy led to widespread abuses within the church, including the selling of indulgences, simony (the buying and selling of church offices), and the total corruption of church leaders. These abuses would eventually provoke reform movements, such as the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century, but by then, the damage had been done.

The Consequences of Hierarchical Authority

The transformation of Ekklesia/church/Kingdom authority from a humble, service-based model to a hierarchical, centralized institution had profound consequences for the church and its mission. Instead of being a countercultural Kingdom dedicated to the teachings of Jesus, the church became an institution focused on maintaining power and influence in the state. The divide between clergy and laity grew wider, with the clergy often seen as a ruling class rather than servants of the people.

The centralization of authority also stifled theological diversity and debate. Church councils, often convened by political rulers, determined doctrine, and dissenting views were labeled heretical. This led to the suppression of Biblical theological perspectives and the marginalization of those who questioned the church’s authority.

Conclusion: Restoring the Original Vision of Church Authority

If the church is to regain its vitality, it must return to its original model of leadership—one based on service, humility, faith and Charity and shared authority. Jesus’ words still hold true today: “The greatest among you will be your servant” (Matthew 23:11). The church must reject the lure of institutional power and embrace a model of leadership that reflects Christ’s call to serve, not to dominate.

The New Testament’s vision of church authority was never about hierarchy or political power; it was about mutual care, spiritual maturity, and humble service. If the church can reclaim this vision, it will once again become a light to the world, not an institution seeking its own power and glory.