John Chrysostom’s Audiences and His Accusations of Religious Laxity

Abstract

This article seeks to investigate the question of religious apathy in the 4th c. by looking at the writings of John Chrysostom and Libanius. It will first explore the accusations of religious laxity that Chrysostom makes against his audience and the picture that Chrysostom’s writings give of the attitudes of his audience towards religion. It will then turn to look in broader terms at the place given to religion in the 4th c. by exploring the writings of Libanius on this matter. By taking into account this broader perspective, this article will suggest that Chrysostom is unfair to accuse his audiences of religious laxity and that instead what we see is that they disagreed with him over the extent to which religion should permeate their lives.

Positionality and Disclosure in the Religious Studies Classroom

“…And what other diversities existed within what would come to be called "Christianity"? 3 Certainly there was no broad uniformity of practice or doctrine, as clerics jockeyed for doctrinal and ecclesiastical victories at ecumenical councils (Kelly [1958(Kelly [ ] 2006Ayres 2004), as leading figures in the church debated what constituted the ethical demands of Christian life (Iosif 2013;Hunter 2009;Wilhite 2007; Upson-Saia 2011; Upson-Saia, Daniel-Hughes, and Batten 2014), and as practicing Christians found no contradiction in participating in activities we now judge as being "pagan" or "Jewish" (as an example, John Chrysostom felt compelled to instruct his Antiochene parishioners in 386/387 CE that they did not, in fact, need to attend synagogue) (see Drake 2013, 79;Sandwell 2010). In short, among those who identified themselves as Christians in late antiquity, there was no clear consensus about what that label meant-either in terms of what they, as self-identified Christians, should do or believe to perform their Christianity, or about what differentiated them from other identity groups (including Jews and adherents of Hellenistic religions, whose internal heterogeneity is similarly complex) (Boyarin 2006).…”