So many Saints were ... a "mess".
David, Moses had his moments, and on through the ages.
I recall what on monastic said; God consistently "paints" using broken brushes. Moses was her example - God's spokesman to the Pharaoh was a stutterer.
Looking at the effect Constantine had, despite his brokeness, is a testimony to God's majesty.
Beautiful phrase, in regards to the statement "God consistently paints using broken brushes."
When looking at the people in scripture and the many ways they were messed up and yet used mightily for the Lord, it's odd to see how many of us may think the same isn't possible for others today.
Constantine made many mistakes and yet he was used greatly by the Lord to ensure that many things were made possible. This does not mean that all choices made by the man that may've been good in one level were automatically beneficial for all groups in the future. I'm reminded of some of the things I was blessed to learn from the book entitled
In the Heart of the Desert, Revised: The Spirituality of the Desert Fathers and Mothers by
Rev. Dr. John Chryssavgis (e
here ), as it concerns Eastern Monastic circles that radically disconnected themselves from the rest of the world....for the Desert Fathers felt they needed to become sectarian/flee from the corruption in the empire, regardless of many of the things done by Constantine when it came to mandatory council set up in order to get things established.
Nonetheless, the Lord used others such as Constantine---imperfect as he was was---to set into motion many things that have enabled believers to be where they are today. For anyone saying he could never have been saved or used of the Lord IMHO, there seems to be alot of circles praising individuals whom many proclaim preached the "Gospel" and yet their lifestyles had a HOST of issues within them that went counter to scriptural command---be it with Martin Luther being well known for being anti-semitic in his writings/hateful toward Jews (even though he led the Reformation)--or John Calvin in his ruthless treatment/abuse toward those who were Anabaptists and Michael Servetus/others.....or Jonathan Edwards, known for his "Sinners in the hands of an Angry God" speech during the Great Awakening, even though MANY ministers (such as John Wesley) condemned the man as a sinnner for tolerating slavery/owning slaves during his lifetime rather than advocating for freedom. The same with Martin Luther King, who proclaimed the GOspel even though he was apparently involved in affairs. There was once a discussion I kept up with that happened on Martin Luther King's Birthday where others were condeming the man because of his errors...saying he wasn't like great men of old in their proclaiming the GOspel---and comparision went down in showing what the GOspel was and who did a better job at it, as seen in an article entitled "
Why Martin Luther King’s Gospel Was Closer to Jesus Than the Reformers" ( )
For me, what comes to my mind is
Hebrews 11 when it comes to faith and how ALOT of the folks in the list---including Samson and Gideon (both of whom were sexually immoral with Samson sleeping with prostitutes and Gideon having a prostitute as well as a golden ephod starting idolatry in
Judges 6-8)---it wasn't their actions alone. For the Lord worked IN SPITE Of who they were. I wonder if the same would be true of Whitney...just as it was with others in the past who did alot of corrupt things.
If a preacher is off on one area of doctrine, or sins by having an affair or getting drunk or whatever, does that mean his minsitry was not from God? Let's just imagine we took that approach to some of the Old Testament heroes. Gideon heard God. But he did that fleece thing. If we went all 'heretic hunter' on Gideon like some of the websites do with modern preachers, might we not reject him as a pagan? Also, since Gideon collected gold to build an idol, might not a heretic hunter, using the same approach as used with modern preachers, right off his great victory as not being from God?
What about Samson? If we use the same approach to Samson, would we reject his supernatural strength as being from God because he touched a dead animal, slept with a prostitute, sold out his secret to Delilah, and got his hair cut? For more, one can do a good study throughout the Book of I-II Kings and Chronicles to examine the lives of differing kings and how they were of the Lord though some areas were off. Remember the phrase "In all things he loved the Lord, EXCEPT........." (Jehosophat being an example, as well as others)
The same dynamic may be present with Constantine, who had alot of areas where he was nowhere near hitting the mark (even though much of his other works touched people for the Lord).
surprised your gpa didn't knock him out! 
