Should The Church And Government Achieve Symphonia?

In the Byzantine Empire, the Church and the empire were directly connected, each decision affecting the other institution in significant ways. In reality, they were so interconnected that they might as well have been the same institution in Christendom. Despite this very intimate relationship between the two greatest powers in its time, the close proximity resulted in enormous, empire-wide controversies and issues. The empire would meddle in Church affairs that did not need imperial input, and patriarchs would unnecessarily meddle in empirical affairs. Some of these controversies, like those related to marriage, for example, make sense. After all, the crowned emperor needed a wife to have children that would one day succeed the throne and continue

Should one rule the other? Should they exist completely separate from one another? Could the Church and the government achieve symphonia? The iconoclastic controversy was one of the main indicators that the Byzantine Commonwealth had serious flaws. While the iconoclasm controversy was, at face value, an issue over whether or not Christians should adorn their churches with icons and honor them, one must also wonder how much of the controversy was related to power and control. Certainly there were well-constructed philosophical and theological arguments with biblical support on both sides, but the destruction and violence of the iconoclasts may point beyond the theological argument. After icons were pretty widespread in Byzantium throughout the centuries, imperial authorities, like Leo III, turned against them. Emperor Constantine V was certainly an iconoclast and acted upon it. He called for a Church council that would reject icons and label their veneration as heresy. The throne traded off iconoclasts for iconophiles then back again between the eighth and ninth centuries, each making their decrees for destruction or veneration of religious

The iconoclasm controversy is quite different. Leo III and Constantine V pushed their agendas, and those who did not agree, like the Patriarch Germanus, were replaced. This goes to show how much power the empirical throne had over the Church. The beginning of the iconoclasm controversy had to do with the dangerous attacks of the Arabs. Leo III feared that God was letting the Arabs win as a form a punishment to the Byzantine empire because of their widespread veneration of icons. Such a belief may have been worth investigating, but that is hardly what these imperial leaders did. Rather, they enforced their beliefs with little to no input from the Church, despite it being a religious issue. While the people of the empire witnessed violence against icons during the iconoclasm controversy, they also experienced religious and political whiplash from the opinions of their leaders. After the reign of Leo III, who introduced iconoclasm, Artavasdus took Constantine V’s throne. While his reign was short, Artvasdus was an iconophile and allowed them into the empire