I really seek this more as an answer that has always been puzzling to me and not intended to debate if you would be so kind to answer these questions.
(1) Do you feel Constantine was good for the church or bad? Do you feel the world and the emperor embracing the church helped further the church in its spiritual aim or hurt it? Do you feel the spiritual quality of the church was diminished when this happened from the days of the catacombs?
Again, “God uses weak vessels in a messy world to carry His message and that message is the treasure which, if you care to study, has remained the same in basic form.”
It’s primarily the message that counts, whether the messengers are living up to it as well as they should or not. And while no messenger attains sinless perfection in this life, we should at least expect that they’ll do better than the rest of the world in this area. And the fact is that some will take the message and run with it, producing much beautiful fruit, while some may ignore, distort, and even scandalize it.
As to Constantine, those who love to hate the Catholic church mark his time as that when the CC began apostatizing and becoming the
Big Bad Catholic Church. Fortunately, the Reformers realized this and rescued the true religion from the gates of hell, albeit some 1200 years later, so God could breathe easier again
. This pop-mythology is based on half-truths and preferential thinking contrived to denounce the teachings of the historic Christian faith, not only Catholicism as it turned out, but the faith as understood in both the east and west as well as the early fathers. The Edict of Milan legitimized all religion, not only Christianity, while Constantine nonetheless favored Christianity himself. But the church never bowed to his positions, voting against Arianism which I believe he supported, at the council he helped convene at Nicaea in order to resolve that controversy. And within the following centuries the church continued to preach and set down, as necessary, solid teachings on the faith. But the church did, now, move from being a persecuted group to an accepted, expanding one. And, yes, I believe God used this for His purposes. But while the message, the body of beliefs, remained intact, whether or not they were always and everywhere taught and expressed so well at any level within the church from leadership to laity, would depend on how well God’s light had affected-and matured-her. And that takes time, in society or this world, as well as in our individual lives. I believe that the church is understanding and beginning to teach the message, the light, more clearly and better than ever now, even as the world is also growing darker in many ways and places.
And the church nonetheless absolutely shined when it came to good fruit. The monasteries preserved what learning existed in the west through the dark ages, eventually developing the educational systems: lower and upper/university. Untold amounts of money and volunteer work would be donated to help the poor, hungry, naked; religious orders would be established, often started by a single figure who inspired many others to join in, dedicated to serving the poor or sick or imprisoned. Thousands of hospitals and orphanages and schools would be built. Altruism on a large scale was virtually put on the map. Justice and order and meaning and goodness and truth and hope and light would be taught as foundational to the universe, in a world that more often than not seemed hostile, chaotic, lost, hopeless, dying. Science and the arts would be increasingly promoted; the pursuit of excellence in general and the betterment of the human condition always held as a central goal.
Now, the church and politics makes strange bedfellows but early on it was looking more and more like God’s kingdom might actually be realizable on planet earth. And without doubt Christianity was an extremely positive force, especially after the fall of the Roman Empire where society and rulerships would become fragmented, in competition, warring, etc. The one solidifying agent was the church, with a common bond of faith that was considered to be essential to everyone and which meant the church could mediate between conflicting kingdoms and interests. These were dark times, much darker and harsher than ours but the faith placed order and justice and goodness at the foundations of it all. Heresy was considered to be a scourge which threatened that very fabric that held everything together. Did the church end up with too much temporal power? Arguably, yes, especially going into the mid to late Middle Ages, and yet without the church, western history, and by virtue of that, world history, would be very different. And abuse of power would arise at times as the church hadn’t yet learned so well that her real power-and treasure, and role - was the sacrificial love that she was shown, and preached, and was meant to model and express. That doesn’t mean that one must tolerate evil- it just means that we must take strides to ensure that we’re not participating in it,
or tolerating it, by either commission or omission IOW-and that can be a balancing act in this world we find ourselves in, even for non-denom types whether they like it or not
. Anyway, the church has learned the hard way IMO that the better role for her is that of preacher and influencer rather than even quasi-direct wielder of civil, temporal power even if that power may've welL been used by God, for overall good, for that time that it prevailed. Either way the church will always be in need of renewal, for both leaders and laity, as she teaches, incidentally.
(2) Do you fault the heart then of the Desert Fathers who separated themselves to the Desert when the rush of the world came in?
Not at all, they have their place in the church. We’re called to varying vocations in varying times. They served in prayer and deepened insights into the faith-and as models showing that worldly pursuits are ultimately empty and futile. And as their pratices evolved into monastery life much more fruit was produced there as well.
