Has Constantine become a Scapegoat?

[Not David]

I believe it is a problem mainly in Evangelism where people blame Constantine for "Pagan Christianity" and "Roman Catholicism"; however; he allowed Christians to avoid getting persecuted and allowed them to have a better chance to make Apologetics. I know he wasn't perfect (none of us are) but none of us has made what Constantine did.

 

[Tree of Life]

No doubt that Christendom changed in the Constatinian era. Going from a persecuted minority to a recognized and then even official religion changed the game. But a lot of good things came from that, too. He does get a bad rap among some. Paganism has been creeping into Christianity from the time that Christianity began breaking into pagan lands - even within the New Testament itself. Constantine should not be blamed for all of that.

 

[Shempster]

There is some evidence that he never renounced his pagan origins. Look at the arch of Constantine. It was made well after his supposed conversion, yet the arch had no Christian symbols carved into it. Instead, it has some pagan imagery and crowned with a carving of himself.
It is enough to make you say "hmmm"

 

[StrivingFollower]

There is some evidence that he never renounced his pagan origins. Look at the arch of Constantine. It was made well after his supposed conversion, yet the arch had no Christian symbols carved into it. Instead, it is filled with pagan imagery and crowned with a carving of himself.
It is enough to make you say "hmmm"

Constantine also had that freakishly big statue that makes him look like a god. I don't think i've seen a prouder-looking figure than the sculptures of Constantine.

 

[Radagast]

I believe it is a problem mainly in Evangelism where people blame Constantine for "Pagan Christianity" and "Roman Catholicism"

it's called the "Darth Constantine" theory. It's spread largely by atheists, and people who know nothing about church history.

For an informed Evangelical view of Constantine, see this book:

 

[Radagast]

There is some evidence that he never renounced his pagan origins.

Nonsense.

Look at the arch of Constantine. It was made well after his supposed conversion

Many of the carvings were actually done before Constantine and recycled (possibly the structure too). And the arch wasn't made by Constantine, it was made by the Senate in his absence (as a form of flattery).

 

[Radagast]

Constantine also had that freakishly big statue that makes him look like a god. I don't think i've seen a prouder-looking figure than the sculptures of Constantine.

According to Eusebius's History of the Church,

But he [Constantine], as one possessed of inborn piety toward God, did not exult in the shouts, nor was he elated by the praises; but perceiving that his aid was from God, he immediately commanded that a trophy of the Saviour's passion be put in the hand of his own statue.

And when he had placed it, with the saving sign of the cross in its right hand, in the most public place in Rome, he commanded that the following inscription should be engraved upon it in the Roman tongue: "By this salutary sign, the true proof of bravery, I have saved and freed your city from the yoke of the tyrant and moreover, having set at liberty both the senate and the people of Rome, I have restored them to their ancient distinction and splendor."

The hand of the statue still exists. It appears to have been made to hold a staff (presumably with the cross or the chi-rho on it), but that staff has been lost.

 

[Percivale]

I would say Constantine did about equal harm and good to Christianity, people get carried away blaming him for things. It’s too bad the church was not better prepared for the change in their legal status.

 

[Radagast]

I would say Constantine did about equal harm and good to Christianity

I don't think he did any harm.

 

[Resha Caner]

Paganism has been creeping into Christianity from the time that Christianity began breaking into pagan lands.

I like that.

There is some evidence that he never renounced his pagan origins.

Not really. No one understands everything at the moment of their conversion. Christians spend a life time trying to understand Christ. Look at the disciples. They didn't get it immediately, and held on to certain Jewish customs for a time. The same is true of figures like Luther. His protest began largely over a single point, and besides that single point he remained Catholic. Then as people asked questions (What about this? What about that?) his views changed. It doesn't mean he wasn't Christian when he had those misunderstandings. If that were true, none of us would be Christians.

 

[Radagast]

Paganism has been creeping into Christianity from the time that Christianity began breaking into pagan lands

Well, no, actually.

 

[Resha Caner]

Well, no, actually.

No? Paul's epistles seem clear enough about all the twists and turns that began very early, and John's letters have a lot to say about gnosticism.

 

[Tree of Life]

Well, no, actually.

What I'm saying is that paganism has always been a threat to the gospel and the church in every age has had to deal with syncretism. I am further saying that the church is in constant need of reformation.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Look, Constantine was a complex man. He also was no saint, though a saint. You don't become sole Emperor, overthrow the Tetrarchy and maintain your rule, without having quite a lot of blood on your hands. He facilitated Christian processes that were already underway in potentia, like the Council of Nicaea. The Empire only 'went Christian' much later with Theodosius, and throughout the period of the Flavian Emperors (Constantine and Successors), many of the pagan structures went on as before, with varying levels of support or withdrawal thereof, by the Emperors. We still see prominent Pagans becoming proconsuls of Africa and such, as late as the fifth century.

Constantine is an important figure in Christianity, and certainly had an effect in moulding Roman practice toward it, but this story of Constantine corrupting Christianity or changing it, really has little basis. If that were the case, why did his openly Arian successors like Constantius II, fail so miserably? It just doesn't pass muster.

 

[FireDragon76]

I think his importance is greatly overblown, both in his supporters and his critics.

I do not think his example of life is particularly worth of commemoration.

 

[Radagast]

You don't become sole Emperor, overthrow the Tetrarchy and maintain your rule, without having quite a lot of blood on your hands.

And not without doing some delicate balancing. Constantine strongly supported Christians, but he also had to keep a largely pagan Senate on side.

but this story of Constantine corrupting Christianity or changing it, really has little basis.

Exactly!

 

[Paidiske]

I do think that talk of a "Constantinian shift" has some validity. Not so much because Constantine himself made it happen, but because as Christianity became legal, the way the Church saw itself in relation to wider society, and the way it conducted itself, changed.

So if one is inclined to critique the hypocrisy and institutionalism of the way the Church developed when it had more power, was able to openly hold property, and so on; the liturgical developments which occurred when people no longer gathered in homes but gathered in basilicas for worship, that sort of thing, then recognising that this became possible because Christianity became religio licita is fair enough.

Blaming it all directly on Constantine is to fail to realise that he just put in place the conditions which made that shift possible, though.

 

[Radagast]

the liturgical developments which occurred when people no longer gathered in homes but gathered in basilicas for worship, that sort of thing, then recognising that this became possible because Christianity became religio licita is fair enough.

Constantine certainly built some wonderful basilicas, but house churches had transitioned gradually into specialised buildings well before his time.

The most famous example is the Dura-Europos church from around 230 AD, which was converted from a house to a specialised church building by knocking down interior walls and redecorating. It included a large worship room and a specialised room for baptisms. From the outside, of course, it looked just like an ordinary house.

The artwork painted on the walls included this picture of Jesus walking on the water:

 

[Paidiske]

Yes, I'm very familiar with Dura-Europos (including the fascinating comparisons with the town synagogue etc). My point was, though, that being able to worship in the open, in more or less public buildings, did change things.

I'm not even saying that that change was bad, just noting that it happened, and it was a big change.

 

[Radagast]

Yes, I'm very familiar with Dura-Europos (including the fascinating comparisons with the town synagogue etc). My point was, though, that being able to worship in the open, in more or less public buildings, did change things.

True, although one of my points was that even if the Dura-Europos church was technically in a house, it was in one that had been converted into a specialised building. It wasn't "gathering in a home."

And I don't think the Constantinian change meant inventing liturgy. The Didache shows that some ind of liturgy existed even in the 1st century.

Being out in the open did provide an opportunity to standardise liturgy, however. One sees indications of that at Nicaea.