Instead, the primary change was regarding the place of the Church is society, and, therefore, the meaningful social changes that occurred during these years were a result of the Church being allowed to play its proper role in society – yes, evangelizing and preaching the Good News, but also positively changing behavior and attitudes.
I recall thinking about the area of complaint regarding God: why not, after the Flood or after the Resurrection, or whatever, did not God just update the social justice code? It is clear God understands that human behavior is not changed this way. Instead, change comes through the lives of the believers, and how these believers interact with their neighbors and their enemies. And this appears to be what occurred in this time period.
Conclusion
It is easy for historians (and some low-Church protestants) to look at this relationship between Church and empire as an unholy alliance. Yet it is an error to throw out the baby (the good outcomes of this relationship) with the bathwater (the temptations to power).
Throughout this time, there were many clergy dedicated to Christ’s mission and good works, and the Christian convictions held by many of the emperors was sincere. All of these men and women were fallen creatures, but this does not discount the good that came about from this alliance.
Unlike the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, it was not a period of Christian “activism,” but, instead, of a Christian life lived. Jesus proclaimed that His kingdom was not of this world, and many in these early centuries of Christendom saw their mission in just this way.
The saints actively lived this paradoxical tension.
In some cases, taking action, in others doing nothing more than demonstrating the Christian life. In enough cases to slowly change society, they were living out this eschatological view: their kingdom was something bigger, something more.
