What should Constantine or the Church have done?

[timothyu]

But Constantine merely guaranteed freedom of religion giving finance for new churches. The real union of church and state came later in the fourth century.

Both built upon the foundation of the institutions of man.

So not a mistake in terms of its fruit - canon, creeds and growth.

While scripture sat comfortably safe behind the self serving institutions and doctrines of man.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Th ideals of the Kingdom of God where God called the world of man and it's governance backwards. How do two opposing systems become one and maintain their opposing values? The Empire did not harlot itself to the Kingdom.

Where did God call the governance of the world backwards? Paul tells us that God instituted law and government for the benefit of even Christians. That they didn't bare the sword in vain and that they could righteously judge people for crimes. It has been part of the Christian tradition since the beginning to respect those in authority, to pay your taxes and do your duty, insofar as it didn't require one to forsake God.

So how did the Church abandon anything in aligning itself with Christians who became the ones in charge? Your dichotomy is more gnostic than it is an actual reflection of Christian thinking on this subject. it suggests Christians are to be beyond the way the world actually works, when Christians and Christianity have never had such lofty considerations on a universal level. The exception being the monastic life. All good if you want to live that way, excellent in fact, but someone needs to have children.

 

[timothyu]

I think many people are inclined to view Constantine as though that was the point at which modern Roman Catholicism was ratified officially.

Constantine defeated the Latin side of the Empire, not enabled it or it's Latin church.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I'll admit I don't see things in such eschatological terms. Mainly because what you're suggesting didn't happen. In so far as the Church herself was corrupted by the State I simply don't see it, either theologically or morally. The inverse seems to have happened. If we can describe Rome as a beast then it's marriage with the Church changed it into a human being. Christianity was the official religion. Paganism was eventually outlawed and sacrifices to pagan Gods forbidden. Crucifixion ended and society drifted towards a more Christian direction. Why was this a bad thing?

As far as the Gospel being preached to the poor, it always has. But more importantly, if the Gospel limited itself to the poor alone and ignored those with power (or the rich) the Church wouldn't have been nearly as successful as it was historically. We would have had no educated members (who could afford a classical education then and be poor?) and with that the intellectual movement for Christianity within the Roman Empire wouldn't have even started off the ground. Books written by Christians, letter exchanges and the helping of other Churches. None of that would have happened had the Church been comprised of just the poor and the slaves. It seems more of a fetish to me, this adulation of the poor, rather than a serious consideration history.

You defined the result as successful.

What are God's criteria for being successful?

 

[timothyu]

Where did God call the governance of the world backwards?

First and foremost in the Lord's Prayer where Jesus says, 'Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth as it is in Heaven'. Obviously mans self serving will and God's will are two opposing factors.

What does God think of mankind?

Luke 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

James 1:27 Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to care for orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.

Romans 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

James 4:4 Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

This last verse is the clearest example of how the Kingdom was abandoned when the church whored itself to the Empire, to the traditional institutions of mankind

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

You defined the result as successful.

What are God's criteria for being successful?

God's criteria for being successful is living a righteous and good life in accords with the gospel. I don't think that limits the gospel to only being believed by the poor and powerless. Nor do I think we should consider it a failure that the Empire became Christian. That's a self-defeating attitude which condemns any possible future success to being marginal and ineffective.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

First and foremost in the Lord's Prayer where Jesus says, 'Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done in earth as it is in Heaven'. Obviously mans self serving will and God's will are two opposing factors.

You assume that secular government can't align with God's purposes when I gave you evidence of Paul agreeing with what secular government did. Therefore your generalization doesn't work, since God instituted even bad Kings for the sake of society. It's not in evidence that God wants us to not have government. The Apostles never resisted Rome on that level, Christians paid taxes and contributed to Rome when they could.

I would ask. Was it wrong for Constantine to convert to Christianity? What should he have done? Favour paganism?

 

[timothyu]

You assume that secular government can't align with God's purposes

Oh but it did. God was able to forward scripture within the opposing system, scripture that clearly states the opposition between the two forces. Talk about a win for God. God used the system of man to convict itself.

 

[timothyu]

I would ask. Was it wrong for Constantine to convert to Christianity? What should he have done? Favour paganism?

Paganism would not have offered him the same benefits in winning the civil war, nor holding the two opposing parts of the Empire together afterwards. Christianity was a convenient tool of political advantage.

And Constantine was said not to have converted to Christianity, but knew a good thing when he saw it. The more likely scenario is Christianity became influenced by Constantine instead in order to please it's benefactor (being primarily gentile in thought pattern) and especially his mother, considering he already called himself three gods in one and the mother of this 'god' was worshipped and played a big part in formulating the secular side of the movement.

 

[hedrick]

The growth exhibited in the early centuries works well in a nation like Rome, where there were no policies aimed at a systemic reduction of Christian influence. Persecution on a serious level was sporadic rather than the norm and it was left to governors to decide what to do with Christians when they found them. It wasn't the policy of Rome to actively search out and destroy Christians. Only destroy them when found.

The context was a discussion of the State enforcing orthodox Christianity. States that prohibit or restrict Christianity aren’t really relevat to that discussion.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Oh but it did. God was able to forward scripture within the opposing system, scripture that clearly states the opposition between the two forces. Talk about a win for God. God used the system of man to convict itself.

Except this is not a universal standard that applies to all contexts at all times. Like with the example of Islam or Japan. If a country is determined to route out Christianity, they can do so.

Yet you continue to act as if Christian Rome was the same entity it was when it was Pagan. Is there really no difference between the Rome of Theodosius and the Rome of Augustus?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Paganism would not have offered him the same benefits in winning the civil war, nor holding the two opposing parts of the Empire together afterwards. Christianity was a convenient tool of political advantage.

And Constantine was said not to have converted to Christianity, but knew a good thing when he saw it. The more likely scenario is Christianity became influenced by Constantine instead in order to please it's benefactor (being primarily gentile in thought pattern) and especially his mother, considering he already called himself three gods in one and the mother of this 'god' was worshipped and played a big part in formulating the secular side of the movement.

Are you saying Constantine invented the doctrine of the Holy Trinity? What is this even?

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

The context was a discussion of the State enforcing orthodox Christianity. States that prohibit or restrict Christianity aren’t really relevat to that discussion.

So long as we agree that Christianity cannot flourish in all repressive contexts.

 

[hedrick]

So long as we agree that Christianity cannot flourish in all repressive contexts.

Sure.

 

[fhansen]

This is a question for those who have a mostly negative view on the whole issue of Constantine the subsequent Constantinian shift within the Roman Empire towards Christianity. Many have a negative view about this history and I think it would be beneficial to ask two questions:

Why was it a mistake or mostly a mistake for the Church to associate with the Imperium?

Then the follow up would be:

What should the Church have done instead?

I think it was one of those things that was meant to be, possibly inevitable-which nonetheless resulted in a learning experience: that it's important that the church is disassociated from any direct involvement in the government. But...at the time it seemed as if heaven might actually be realized here on earth, a reasonable enough hope or expectation even if it seems naïve now. But Christianity had brought an extremely stabilizing force into a very chaotic and dark and warring society and world-and the Church was the one link that could and did bring feudal enemies, for example, together-on a moral basis. Also, the Edict of Milan which Constantine helped draft was for the purpose of legitimizing all religions and ending religious persecution, even as he favored Christianity itself. And his presence did not influence the Church's teachings as is evident by the fact that the Council of Nicaea, which he was instrumental in getting convened, ruled against his own pet belief in Arianism. And the teachings of the church in the west would continue to be conservative and orthodox if one seriously looks into the teachings, such as the councils following Nicaea, for example. And in any case the change allowed the faith to be spread on a much larger scale.

Either way, the church and civil government became strange bedfellows, which is as it should be, but for awhile it was looking as if some temporal power might actually be God's will for the Church. Heresy was looked upon as an absolute danger to the stability of a society which had become enlightened to a large degree by a religion that had placed hope and love and goodness and order and eternal life at the foundations of a world that was more often experienced as evil and dark and selfish and meaningless and chaotic and hopeless- and just a giant slaughterhouse at the end of the day. We can't even identify with that life now even as we may seem to be slipping backwards increasingly, into atheism. And those positive basics of this new religion remained regardless of how well or how poorly its people and/or leaders were heeding its message at any given time-while, to be fair, there have always been many, many who took the message of love and brought great progress with it to advancing God's kingdom in one manner or another.

 

[timothyu]

Yet you continue to act as if Christian Rome was the same entity it was when it was Pagan.

Secular government of man using gods to justify themselves? No difference.

 

[timothyu]

Are you saying Constantine invented the doctrine of the Holy Trinity?

Both the secular and Christian concept were around in their differing formats for the same period of time. Homogenise the two and who knows who influenced who? One thing we know, no one including the church denied Constantine his ego boosting three gods in one identity he portrayed.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Secular government of man using gods to justify themselves? No difference.

Who is justifying themselves and how? Again, everything you say is too vague to be taken seriously.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Both the secular and Christian concept were around in their differing formats for the same period of time. Homogenise the two and who knows who influenced who? One thing we know, no one including the church denied Constantine his ego boosting three gods in one identity he portrayed.

What are you talking about? Are you saying Constantine invented the Trinity? Be clear.

 

[timothyu]

Who is justifying themselves and how? Again, everything you say is too vague to be taken seriously.

The Caesars used whatever god was convenient