Why did the church change its stand on the use of force?

[Ender]

Re Christian soldiers: “I was shut up by this vast {enemy} host, having with me only a battalion composed of the first, tenth, double and marine legions. Having then examined my own position, and my host, with respect to the vast mass of barbarians and of the enemy, I quickly betook myself to prayer to the gods of my country. But being disregarded by them, I summoned those who among us go by the name of Christians. And having made inquiry, I discovered a great number and vast host of them” Marcus Aurelius, Emperor of Rome, 161 - 180 AD. This seems to indicate that a lot of Christians were soldiers during the time in question.

He continues: *“and raged against them, which was by no means becoming; for afterwards I learned their power. Wherefore they began the battle, not by preparing weapons, nor arms, nor bugles; for such preparation is hateful to them, on account of the God they bear about in their conscience.” *Even as soldiers they retained their Christian identity and attitude toward war … but still, they served.

Ender

 

[Ender]

*"he {Diocletian} had been plotting secretly and without notice against the churches. He did not wage war against all of us at once, but made trial at first only of those in the army. For he supposed that the others could be taken easily if he should first attack and subdue these. Thereupon many of the soldiers were seen most cheerfully embracing private life, so that they might not deny their piety toward the Creator of the universe. *{Obviously they did not consider that serving in the army conflicted with their faith.}

3. For when the commander, whoever he was, began to persecute the soldiers, separating into tribes and purging those who were enrolled in the army, giving them the choice either by obeying to receive the honor which belonged to them, or on the other hand to be deprived of it if they disobeyed the command, a great many soldiers of Christ’s kingdom, without hesitation, instantly preferred the confession of him to the seeming glory and prosperity which they were enjoying."

Eusebius, Church History Book VIII, ch 4 - referring to the beginning of the persecution under Diocletian 303 AD.

 

[Ender]

“22. A band of soldiers, Ammon and Zeno and Ptolemy and Ingenes, and with them an old man, Theophilus, were standing close together before the tribunal. And as a certain person who was being tried as a Christian, seemed inclined to deny, they standing by gnashed their teeth, and made signs with their faces and stretched out their hands, and gestured with their bodies. And when the attention of all was turned to them, before any one else could seize them, they rushed up to the tribunal saying that they were Christians, so that the governor and his council were affrighted. And those who were on trial appeared most courageous in prospect of their sufferings, while their judges trembled. And they went exultingly from the tribunal rejoicing in their testimony; God himself having caused them to triumph gloriously.”

Eusebius Church History, Book VI, ch 41 describing the persecutions in Alexandria under Severus, 202 AD

 

[bengal_fan]

ender,

first, i didn’t dismiss the arguments of augustine (aquinas’ are just adding to augustine so we don’t really need to address his, plus he is writing at a time where the church had allowed violence for hundreds of years). i simply stated that his views differed from what the Christians before him believed and practiced. then i pointed out the time frame in which he wrote was after the church and government were partnered.

i thought my explanations of the luke passage were sufficient enough to show that Jesus might not have been giving permission for military service. plus, i then pointed out the fact that those closest to Him (in relation and proximity of time) took His teachings to mean that violence, force, self-defense, and military service were wrong. i think my argument on that one is valid.

the romans passage simply refers to the government itself and the power that it has and why we should submit to it. notice though that when the government orders things directly in contrast to God’s law, the church disobeyed.

as for your quotes offered, i never said Christians weren’t in the military at the time. i said that they were forbidden to join and that if they were already in they needed to serve out their time, but would not be allowed the sacrament until their service was over. also, they were to not engage in violence while serving. your quotes all support what i said.

i still don’t understand what your argument is? are you arguing that war is just or that the church didn’t change its stand? if it’s the first, i can argue either way because it is not an issue i have come to a complete decision on (as i’ve mildly stated throughout this thread). if the second, i feel i have proven my point time and again in here and the earliest church fathers and the practices of the earliest church (especially their refusal to defend jerusalem) are irrefutable evidence to that.

 

[bengal_fan]

Neil,
exactly the issues i think about and wonder about. the earliest church believed that every life was equal and you could not value one life over another, or even one life over many lives. were they right? i don’t know.

my whole question on this thread is why did the church change its stance on these issues. they did. so why? some have offered answers. just because i then try to present the argument that probably would have been made by many of those earliest church fathers doesn’t mean i think i know the answer to these questions.

i get the feeling some are offended by the subject of this thread. maybe because i am stating the fact that the RCC of today does not look identical to the earliest church on this issue. i have never said this attacks the doctrine of the infallibility of the RCC (in fact i have said it doesn’t since it doesn’t seem to have been a defined belief although it was a universal practice). so why don’t people just attempt to answer the question of why the church changed its view. again, some have. mainly the views offered have been dependent on secular reasons (maintaining order, etc.). it has been hinted at but no one has outright said that it is because the roman government went from being pagan to believing it was the representative of God here on earth and that the church went along with it in many ways. the church still criticized the emperors when they tried to claim too much spiritual authority, but they still seemed to have a pretty intimate partnership and that affected their view on war which trickled down all the way to their view on protecting ourselves as individuals.

 

[Ender]

i thought my explanations of the luke passage were sufficient enough to show that Jesus might not have been giving permission for military service.

Your initial citations were pretty strong and supported your contention but your explanation of Luke is weak and not nearly as reasonable as Augustine’s explanation. Dismissing Augustine because of when he wrote is simply evading the logic of his argument.

the romans passage simply refers to the government itself and the power that it has and why we should submit to it.

Very true, but a government is composed of people and those people have been granted the authority to use force, including deadly force, to protect society. Since the Church from the beginning recognized the legitimate use of force it cannot be said that she taught pacifism above all things.

i never said Christians weren’t in the military at the time. i said that they were forbidden to join and that if they were already in they needed to serve out their time, but would not be allowed the sacrament until their service was over. also, they were to not engage in violence while serving. your quotes all support what i said.

My quotes surely do not support your claims. The quote from Aurelius was when he was fighting in Germany. It is not credible to hold that in the middle of a campaign he suddenly discovered his army contained a large number of men who wouldn’t fight.

are you arguing that war is just or that the church didn’t change its stand? … i feel i have proven my point time and again in here and the earliest church fathers and the practices of the earliest church (especially their refusal to defend jerusalem) are irrefutable evidence to that.

I started out with no conception of what the early Church taught; I was simply responding to the logic of your arguments. I certainly reject your assertion that the Church formed her position based on practical considerations. Finally, I am a lot more unwilling than you to base an opinion on what someone doesn’t do. The fact that the Christians did not fight to protect Jerusalem is not irrefutable evidence of anything.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Clement of Alexandria c. 200 AD Instructions, Book I, ch 9

*"*For if rulers are not a terror to a good work, how shall God, who is by nature good, be a terror to him who sins not? “If you do evil, be afraid,” Romans 13:3-4 *says the apostle. Wherefore the apostle himself also in every case uses stringent language to the Churches, after the Lord’s example"

“There is a twofold species of fear, the one of which is accompanied with reverence, such as citizens show towards good rulers, and we towards God, as also right-minded children towards their fathers.”

“See how the justice of the Instructor, which deals in rebukes, is shown; and the goodness of God, which deals in compassions.”

ch 10
“we have shown that the plan of dealing stringently with humanity is good and salutary, and necessarily adopted by the Word, and conducive to repentance and the prevention of sins.”*

What Clement has written expands on and supports what Paul wrote in Romans. Since Clement compares earthly judges with the judgment of God he clearly is not condemning the use of the sword by governments. You have made the mistake of assuming that instructions about how we as individuals are to respond to personal injustice also apply to governments. It should not be surprising that the full development of doctrine regarding how governments should behave didn’t occur until the need arose.

"The good bear with the wicked by enduring patiently, and in due manner, the wrongs they themselves receive from them: but they do not bear with them as to endure the wrongs they inflict on God and their neighbor." Unidentified

Ender

 

[bengal_fan]

i think my arguments have been logical and credible so we will have to disagree on that since i see nowhere that you have shown otherwise. i have seen where i can use your quotes to support my arguments but you don’t seem to see it so we won’t agree on that.

i will let the numerous writings (only a few of which i cited), the actual words of Jesus, and the actions (and inactions which DO speak to the beliefs of the early church) of the earliest Christians to prove that the early church did forbid military service (unless one was already enlisted and then they were barred from violence in their service and the sacraments until their service was complete), self-defense (if you read all of what augustine wrote in his just war theory, he still maintains that self-defense is not a legitimate reason to resort to violence), and any use of force.

i still have not seen one Christian writing from the period i am talking about that refutes the statements of the rest of the Christians at that time. all that has been provided are writings AFTER church and government joined together which illustrates my point further, that the church did change what it allowed when it came to the use of force and military service.

my question was why? and the few who actually acknowledged the truth attempted to give answers. the main theme i saw was because Christians were now responsible for order within the society and sometimes order can only be kept through violence. that is a reasonable argument. i guess i would only offer this alternative suggestion. force can only change action (for a limited time at that). it cannot change attitudes. the only thing that can affect the attitudes and beliefs of people is love and sacrifice for their benefit. if we as Christians really chose to love our enemies and serve them, we might never have to pick up another weapon again. if we chose to stand in between aggressors and the weak, and were willing to take the attack in place of the weak, we would cause an uproar throughout the world. but until we unite in that type of action, we will just be in the business of trying to curb the actions of others.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Neil,
exactly the issues i think about and wonder about. the earliest church believed that every life was equal and you could not value one life over another, or even one life over many lives. were they right? i don’t know.

my whole question on this thread is why did the church change its stance on these issues. they did.

I haven’t seen anything from you to show that the early church would not defend themselves against crime. Everything you posted was to do with not supporting rebellion against the Romans or not joining the Roman military. So you can’t honestly say that they were opposed to using violence in any situation to protect the innocent. Show us where the early Christians said they would stand by and watch when a ***criminal *** murdered the innocent. You won’t be able to show it, because that was never part of the Christian faith.

 

[bengal_fan]

What Clement has written expands on and supports what Paul wrote in Romans. Since Clement compares earthly judges with the judgment of God he clearly is not condemning the use of the sword by governments. You have made the mistake of assuming that instructions about how we as individuals are to respond to personal injustice also apply to governments. It should not be surprising that the full development of doctrine regarding how governments should behave didn’t occur until the need arose.

it seems you are misinterpreting the passage written by clement. he is saying that we have nothing to fear from doing good works because the terror of the government can’t stop them from doing it. then he goes on to say that only God’s justice is legitimate. only He has the authority. it never says that the government has the right to do what it does. it only says it does it and that it cannot stop the good works because we have nothing to fear from the government (ultimately because God is the one who is in charge).

i would agree that the idea of Christians involvement in violence and the use of force wasn’t a major issue until the church and government partnered. up until then, it was universally believed that Christians were to never use force. when they were put in charge, they then had to decide if that was to change. the reason augustine had to write his just war theory is because it was a new idea within Christianity. so there is the answer i have been looking for from you. and it is the same one others have given, because Christians were now in charge and had to keep order and order can only be kept by force or at least the threat of force.

so now should we start another thread asking the question of whether that assumption is true or not.

 

[bengal_fan]

I haven’t seen anything from you to show that the early church would not defend themselves against crime. Everything you posted was to do with not supporting rebellion against the Romans or not joining the Roman military. So you can’t honestly say that they were opposed to using violence in any situation to protect the innocent. Show us where the early Christians said they would stand by and watch when a ***criminal *** murdered the innocent. You won’t be able to show it, because that was never part of the Christian faith.

Ignatius (approx. A.D. 110)
“Do not avenge yourself on those who injure you… let us imitate the Lord, who when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he was crucified, he answered not; when he suffered, he threatened not; but prayed for his enemies.”

Tertullian (wrote between A.D. 195-212)
“For what difference is there between provoker and provoked? The only difference is that the former was the first to do evil, but the latter did evil afterwards. Each one stands condemned in the eyes of the Lord for hurting a man. For God both prohibits and condemns every wickedness. In evil doing, there is no account taken of the order… the commandment is absolute: evil is not to be repaid with evil.”

Julian
“I am a Christian, and therefore I cannot fight.”

Athenagoras (approx. A.D. 180)
“We have learned not only not to return blow for blow, nor to go to law with those who plunder and rob us, but to those who smite us on the one side of the face to offer the other side also, and to those who take away our coat to give likewise our cloak.”

Lactantius (early 4th century)
“When we suffer such ungodly things, we do not resist even in word. Rather, we leave vengeance to God.”

“The Christian does injury to no one. He does not desire the property of others. In fact, he does not even defend his own property if it is taken from him by violence. For he knows how to patiently bear an injury inflicted upon him.”

“We do not resist those who injure us, for we must yield to them.”

Clement of Alexandria (approx. A.D. 195)
“Christians are not allowed to use violence to correct the delinquencies of sins.”

“Man is in reality a pacific instrument.”

Marcellus (approx. A.D. 298)
“It is not lawful for a Christian to bear arms for any earthly consideration.”

Cyprian (approx. A.D. 250)
“[Christians] are not allowed to kill, but they must be ready to be put to death themselves… it is not permitted the guiltless to put even the guilty to death.”

Arnobius (approx. A.D. 310)
“If all without exception . . . would lend an ear for a little to Christ’s salutary and peaceful rules… the whole world, having turned the use of steel into more peaceful occupations, would now be living in the most placid tranquility, and would unite in blessed harmony, maintaining inviolate the sanctity of treaties.”

Ambrose
“The servants of God do not rely for their protection on material defenses but on the divine Providence.”

there are some.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Thank you for the quotes. I think some of these are taken out of context. Let me explain:

Ignatius (approx. A.D. 110)
“Do not avenge yourself on those who injure you… let us imitate the Lord, who when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he was crucified, he answered not; when he suffered, he threatened not; but prayed for his enemies.”

For sure, we should never take revenge. Everyone agrees that revenge is not Christian. Protecting the innocent from crime is different from revenge.

Tertullian (wrote between A.D. 195-212)
“For what difference is there between provoker and provoked? The only difference is that the former was the first to do evil, but the latter did evil afterwards. Each one stands condemned in the eyes of the Lord for hurting a man. For God both prohibits and condemns every wickedness. In evil doing, there is no account taken of the order… the commandment is absolute: evil is not to be repaid with evil.”

Same as above. Evil should not be repaid with evil. This isn’t about stopping someone committing a crime, it is about not taking revenge.

Julian
“I am a Christian, and therefore I cannot fight.”

Seems to refer to fighting in the Roman army.

Athenagoras (approx. A.D. 180)
“We have learned not only not to return blow for blow, nor to go to law with those who plunder and rob us, but to those who smite us on the one side of the face to offer the other side also, and to those who take away our coat to give likewise our cloak.”

This is a good quote. So I looked it up to put it into context. Indeed it seems to have been badly taken out of context. Here’s the full context:

CHAP. I.–INJUSTICE SHOWN TOWARDS THE CHRISTIANS.

In your empire, greatest of sovereigns, different nations have different customs and laws; and no one is hindered by law or fear of punishment from following his ancestral usages, however ridiculous these may be. A citizen of Ilium calls Hector a god, and pays divine honours to Helen, taking her for Adrasteia. The Lacedaemonian venerates Agamemnon as Zeus, and Phylonoe the daughter of Tyndarus; and the man of Tenedos worships Tennes. The Athenian sacrifices to Erechtheus as Poseidon. The Athenians also perform religious rites and celebrate mysteries in honour of Agraulus and Pandrosus, women who were deemed guilty of impiety for opening the box. In short, among every nation and people, men offer whatever sacrifices and celebrate whatever mysteries they please. The Egyptians reckon among their gods even cats, and crocodiles, and serpents, and asps, and dogs. And to all these both you and the laws give permission so to act, deeming, on the one hand, that to believe in no god at all is impious and wicked, and on the other, that it is necessary for each man to worship the gods he prefers, in order that through fear of the deity, men may be kept from wrong-doing. But why–for do not, like the multitude, be led astray by hearsay–why is a mere name odious to you?

Names are not deserving of hatred: it is the unjust act that calls for penalty and punishment. And accordingly, with admiration of your mildness and gentleness, and your peaceful and benevolent disposition towards every man, individuals live in the possession of equal rights; and the cities, according to their rank, share in equal honour; and the whole empire, under your intelligent sway, enjoys profound peace. But for us who are called Christians you have not in like manner cared; but although we commit no wrong–nay, as will appear in the sequel of this discourse, are of all men most piously and righteously disposed towards the Deity and towards your government–you allow us to be harassed, plundered, and persecuted, the multitude making war upon us for our name alone. We venture, therefore, to lay a statement of our case before you–and you will team from this discourse that we suffer unjustly, and contrary to all law and reason–and we beseech you to bestow some consideration upon us also, that we may cease at length to be slaughtered at the instigation of false accusers. For the fine imposed by our persecutors does not aim merely at our property, nor their insults at our reputation, nor the damage they do us at any other of our greater interests.

These we hold in contempt, though to the generality they appear matters of great importance; for we have learned, not only not to return blow for blow, nor to go to law with those who plunder and rob us, but to those who smite us on one side of the face to offer the other side also, and to those who take away our coat to give likewise our cloak. But, when we have surrendered our property, they plot against our very bodies and souls, pouring upon us wholesale charges of crimes of which we are guiltless even in thought, but which belong to these idle praters themselves, and to the whole tribe of those who are like them.

He’s talking about not resisting when the Roman persecutors would fine them and seize their goods. This isn’t about being robbed on the street. It’s about submitting to the government.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Lactantius (early 4th century)
“When we suffer such ungodly things, we do not resist even in word. Rather, we leave vengeance to God.”

“The Christian does injury to no one. He does not desire the property of others. In fact, he does not even defend his own property if it is taken from him by violence. For he knows how to patiently bear an injury inflicted upon him.”

“We do not resist those who injure us, for we must yield to them.”

I have the divine institutes by Lactantius, but I can’t find these quotes in them. The reference I found online don’t seem to help. I want to give context to it. I agree with you that it’s a good quote but the context is important.

Clement of Alexandria (approx. A.D. 195)
“Christians are not allowed to use violence to correct the delinquencies of sins.”

“Man is in reality a pacific instrument.”

I can’t find the context for this either, except that this page bibletexts.com/terms/war.htm gives this other quote from the same person in the same book:

But for a man, bare feet are quite in keeping – except when he is on military service. (c. 195), ANF 2.267.

Marcellus (approx. A.D. 298)
“It is not lawful for a Christian to bear arms for any earthly consideration.”

The context of this shows that Marcellus was a soldier and said this because as a Christian he could support the Roman army:

There are cases of soldiers who converted to Christianity and abandoned the military,even upon being imprisoned for this act.Marcellus,a centurion in the leigon called Trajana is quoted as saying upon imprisonment “It is not lawful for a Christian to bear arms for any earthly consideration”-and for this he was put to death-an early Christian Martyr before Rome adopted the growing religion and adapted it to suit their imperial ways

Cyprian (approx. A.D. 250)
“[Christians] are not allowed to kill, but they must be ready to be put to death themselves… it is not permitted the guiltless to put even the guilty to death.”

I can’t find the context.

Arnobius (approx. A.D. 310)
“If all without exception . . . would lend an ear for a little to Christ’s salutary and peaceful rules… the whole world, having turned the use of steel into more peaceful occupations, would now be living in the most placid tranquility, and would unite in blessed harmony, maintaining inviolate the sanctity of treaties.”

This is wonderful. But I don’t think it says not to defend yourself against crime.

Ambrose
“The servants of God do not rely for their protection on material defenses but on the divine Providence.”

How literal is this… the psalms do talk about how God is our protector but also didn’t say not to go to war. It seems very poetic and not really a formal statement about standing by while criminals kill and steal from the weak and innocent.

 

[bengal_fan]

people can read what they want into anything. i see all of the quotes i’ve offered as pertaining to all areas of life. and most seem to be doing that. but everyone comes with specific agenda. my quotes seem to support what i think they support but you disagree. that is fine. so show me where anyone said (prior to the conversion of constantine) that it is okay to defend yourself or some one else.

until that is done, i stand by every comment and quote as supporting my argument. because no one has been able to show otherwise.

 

[bobzills]

Maybe they really were all Jehovah’s witnesses!

Actually, I think they have a good idea. It would be better if everyone just refused to join the military and refused to fight their fellow human being.

 

[Ender]

I can’t find the context for this either

Clement of Alexandria (approx. A.D. 195)

I think this statement is true today as it pertains to the individual. Punishment for sin is the sole prerogative of the government. Bengel_fan fails to distinguish instructions directed at the individual from those appropriate to governments.

Ambrose
“The servants of God do not rely for their protection on material defenses but on the divine Providence.”

This is also from Ambrose and here he clearly finds merit in the defense of others through force:

“For courage, which in war preserves one’s country from the barbarians, or at home defends the weak, or comrades from robbers, is full of justice”

The context of this shows that Marcellus was a soldier and said this because as a Christian he could support the Roman army

We know that Christians served in the Roman army from the time of the Apostles. That could not have been forbidden them as they were frequently martyred when discovered so, if they weren’t afraid to die for their faith, I doubt that they would have continued in a profession from which their faith banned them.

Ender

 

[bengal_fan]

This is also from Ambrose and here he clearly finds merit in the defense of others through force:

“For courage, which in war preserves one’s country from the barbarians, or at home defends the weak, or comrades from robbers, is full of justice”

finallly! a quote that actually does go against all of the other quotes that is not from augustine or those after him. one could argue that ambrose was during the time of constantine as well which might have clouded his judgement, but he seems to be the first to distinguish between personal action and government action.

We know that Christians served in the Roman army from the time of the Apostles. That could not have been forbidden them as they were frequently martyred when discovered so, if they weren’t afraid to die for their faith, I doubt that they would have continued in a profession from which their faith banned them.

and we know that they were barred from the eucharist until their military service was over. we also know that they were martyred as soldiers because they refused to fight in the battles. they were permitted to remain in service until their term of service was complete. this was to avoid unnecessary martyrdom which the church has always opposed. they were not permitted to kill which is why they were martyred and they were not permitted to partake of the eucharist until their service was complete.

here is a follow up question. if individuals are to behave differently that the government, how is the government supposed to function? if we are supposed to turn the other cheek and beat our swords into plowshares and war no more (as the scripture says), then how would a government ever go to war with Christians in their armies? my answer would be because Christians decided to change their views on their own personal responsibilities. it is abundantly clear that the earliest church forbade these things. it is abundantly clear they changed their position after partnering with the government. but if we all maintain that it is the ideal to be peaceful and loving and forgiving and to value another’s life above our own, how can we justify war? if every life is valuable to God, if there is “no one righteous, not even one” (this includes ourselves), if there is no perfect government (as ours has shown repeatedly) how can we justify fighting and killing? i understand the argument of killing some one to prevent them from killing others and that is a tough one. it feels right to do that. but in the end that is valuing some one else’s life over the life of the killer. do numbers of people make one life less valid?

i know that we are going to disagree on this so i am going to be done with this thread. i just wanted to leave with those final thoughts. i firmly believe that my view is what the earliest church practiced and provided ample evidence of that (whether from writings or the actions of the people). you all have provided evidence that the church changed it’s view. both are valid, but i will stick with what the people closest to the time of Jesus thought would change the world.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

here is a follow up question. if individuals are to behave differently that the government, how is the government supposed to function? if we are supposed to turn the other cheek and beat our swords into plowshares and war no more (as the scripture says), then how would a government ever go to war with Christians in their armies?

My answer to this is that the government should only use force when it is done according to Jesus’ principle of ‘love thy neighbor as thyself’. So the government could use force for the greater good to protect the weak and innocent against crime by some of its citizens against others. It could use force to defend its citizens from foreign aggressors but only under circumstances where it could be genuinely said to be done for the greater good and out of genuine consideration of the good of all involved. I think that’s what Augustine’s just war theory does, in fact, it applies the laws of ‘Love thy neighbor’ and ‘love your enemy’ to the international community.

In practice, this means that many (maybe most) wars led by Christian nations were wrong and Christians shouldn’t have participated in the army, in my opinion. It would be so nice to see a ‘Christian nation’ actually turn the other cheek, when appropriate. To actually make a statement that in obedience to Christ, they would not respond to an insult or minor attack. I’m not aware of any government ever doing that, unfortunately

 

[Orionthehunter]

i know that we are going to disagree on this so i am going to be done with this thread. i just wanted to leave with those final thoughts. i firmly believe that my view is what the earliest church practiced and provided ample evidence of that (whether from writings or the actions of the people). you all have provided evidence that the church changed it’s view. both are valid, but i will stick with what the people closest to the time of Jesus thought would change the world.

I’m sure that you hold the same standard with regard to Authority and the Eucharist.

 

[Ender]

if individuals are to behave differently that the government, how is the government supposed to function?

Paul explained this in Romans 13:4. Actions that are forbidden for a private citizen to commit are often required of the government official.

my answer would be because Christians decided to change their views on their own personal responsibilities.
it is abundantly clear that the earliest church forbade these things.

Paul did not forbid them, in fact he explicitly noted the government’s obligation in that regard and this was recognized by the early Church.

*“It must be remembered that power was granted by God [to the magistrates], and to avenge crime by the sword was permitted. He who carries out this vengeance is God’s minister (Rm 13:1-4). Why should we condemn a practice that all hold to be permitted by God? We uphold, therefore, what has been observed until now, in order not to alter the discipline and so that we may not appear to act contrary to God’s authority.” *Innocent I 405 AD

it is abundantly clear they changed their position after partnering with the government.

It was not for almost another hundred years after the Church “partnered with the government” that the biblical canon was settled. How can you accept the Bible and yet reject its interpretation by the same people who decided which books it should contain? How do you explain trusting them in their selection of the content while rejecting their interpretation of the content they selected?

Ender