What should Constantine or the Church have done?

[timothyu]

Think of the Christian religion as containing denominations similar the two different types of banks. One sets itself up as either for profit owner or intermediary between savers and borrowers. The other is a union of members who pool resources to create a common nest egg. The first likes to dominate where the second is more community minded. The first is built upon the self serving foundation of the institutions of man, while the second resembles the ways of the Kingdom.

 

[Philip_B]

Right...and yet there was.

No, @Root of Jesse I think the point being made was in the time of Constantine, that was not a consideration. Constantine lived in a world where the division between East and West was not as pronounced.

The term pope was originally applied to all the bishops in the West and also used to describe the patriarch of Alexandria, who still retains the title. In 1073, however, Pope Gregory VII restricted its use to the bishop of Rome, confirming a practice that had existed since the 9th century.

We have in recent times coined the phrase Byzantine Empire, which is useful in the sense that it essentially allows historians to deal with an Empire that spanned more than 1000 years, and through several phases. Those who ruled Constantinople saw themselves as Romans, and their Empire (diminishing as it was) as the Roman Empire.

Backtracking our experience of the Church today as the way to understand the Historical Church is not likely to be helpful, and more likely to entrench division.

 

[Philip_B]

Think of the Christian religion as containing denominations similar the two different types of banks. One sets itself up as either for profit owner or intermediary between savers and borrowers. The other is a union of members who pool resources to create a common nest egg. The first likes to dominate where the second is more community minded. The first is built upon the self serving foundation of the institutions of man, while the second resembles the ways of the Kingdom.

Think of the Christian religion in terms of the Creed put forward by the 1st Council of Constantinople, and which serves as the statement of faith for this forum, namely One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.

Think of God, who is both transcendent and immanent.

 

[timothyu]

I'm quite happy with the rarity of God's will being done in earth as it is in heaven over any institution of man which insists on it's will being adhered to for it's own sake and defense..

 

[Root of Jesse]

No, @Root of Jesse I think the point being made was in the time of Constantine, that was not a consideration. Constantine lived in a world where the division between East and West was not as pronounced.

The term pope was originally applied to all the bishops in the West and also used to describe the patriarch of Alexandria, who still retains the title. In 1073, however, Pope Gregory VII restricted its use to the bishop of Rome, confirming a practice that had existed since the 9th century.

We have in recent times coined the phrase Byzantine Empire, which is useful in the sense that it essentially allows historians to deal with an Empire that spanned more than 1000 years, and through several phases. Those who ruled Constantinople saw themselves as Romans, and their Empire (diminishing as it was) as the Roman Empire.

Backtracking our experience of the Church today as the way to understand the Historical Church is not likely to be helpful, and more likely to entrench division.

Not a consideration of what? @prodromos said there was no papacy to rebel against, but there was a Papacy, and they did rebel. I know that the term has been since coined, but the office was there. Peter was the first, and we have a line of succession from him. Just because the term may not have existed, the office did, and so did the officer.

 

[timothyu]

Mimicking the ol' descended from David thing, but using gentiles descended from Peter??

 

[RDKirk]

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 don't blame the Church's actions because I suspect they were awfully tired of being fed to lions. But ideally the Church should have insisted that Constantine immediately be baptized and abdicate his position as Pontifex Maximus of Rome's official pagan religions.

Everything else would have followed appropriately from that.

 

[RDKirk]

The world has every right to judge us by how we treat each other, even more than how we treat others. I think the record on that is not encouraging.

Jesus explicitly gave the world that right by stating it as a reality that would definitely occur (after the Lord of the universe has asserted an action, the universe conforms to His assertion) and it was repeated by Peter and Paul.

 

[Bob Crowley]

Two social reforms that Constantine bought in were a ban on crucifixion, and the ending of gladiatorial games.

He helped to consolidate church dogma and centralise its practice (to avoid the constant feuding between religious movements and sects), while allowing all citizens to worship in any religion they chose without penalty (which should resonate with Americans).

He formalised Sunday as a day of rest, which the early Church already practised, and inaugurated the First Council of Nicea which dealt with Arianism, and formalised the Nicean Creed, which is basically accepted by all the churches, even if they don't recite it.

Granted he had his blind spots, but who doesn't?

He also set up Constantinople which would preserve the best of Roman art and architecture, and much of Christian tradition and iconography. It was sacked only once (by the Fourth Crusaders) until it's fall 1000 years later. Someone wrote recently that in the same period Rome was sacked 21 times (I don't know if I read it on CF or somewhere else).

In effect the Roman Empire shifted from Rome to Constantinople, and became the Holy (Christian) Roman Empire.

Not being the man in the hot seat, I'm not going to criticise him. He did what he could in the circumstances, and generally did a pretty good job.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I have for many years maintained the position that there are two problematic streams of thought about Constantine that I've seen:

The one promoted by various Restorationist and Primitivist sects in which Constantine is a diabolical villain working to overthrow "True Christianity" by mingling it with Paganism and introducing a false religion that existed until the Reformation. This is stupid and obviously false.

Then there is also the view that Constantine was effectively all good, and that the coming together of Church and Empire was a good thing; that the union of ecclesiastical and temporal power is good. I think history is sufficient in demonstrating just how wrong this position is.

So therefore, what do I take as my position?

Constantine was a complex human person, and it is impossible to know all of his thoughts or what was in his heart. Was his conversion to Christianity genuine? I have no idea. Constantine did good things and Constantine did bad things. For example, Constantine's murder of Fausta and Crispus is obviously bad. Ending the persecutions against the Church? Good. Throughout his reign he both acted as Pontifex Maximus of Roman pagan religion; but he also granted Christian clergy the same rights and privileges under the law that was afforded to pagan priests. Constantine personally sponsored the building of churches and the printing of Bibles.

Constantine did good by calling together the bishops to meet and address the Arian controversy at Nicea; but Constantine did bad when he went against the Council of Nicea's rulings and deposed and exiled St. Athanasius the Great and had the heresiarch Arius placed on St. Mark's seat. Constantine in his later life sided with the anti-Nicene faction, and was eventually baptized on his deathbed by the Arian heretic, Eusebius of Nicomedia.

Constantine's legacy is complicated and messy. His successors, Constantinus and Constans were themselves split between loyalties to the Nicene and Arian factions--with ultimately Constantinus' Arian predilections winning with the death of Constans. Continuing the wound in the Church, and the struggle between Athanasius and "the world" for which he is remembered for his many forced exiles--Athanasius contra Mundum.

But it wasn't under Constantine that Church and State truly came together, that would not happen until the reign of Theodosius I, a devout adherent to the Nicene confession, and also the one responsible for bringing together the Council of Constantinople to reaffirm Nicea and address the Macedonian controversy. Theodosius also signed the Edict of Thessalonika, which made Christianity the official state religion of the Roman Empire.

It is only after Theodosius that we see the fruits of this. Only six years after Theodosius' edict Priscillian, a heretic, was put to death by the state.

It is in the context of Church-and-State that the worst things perpetrated in the name of Christ have taken place: the execution of heretics, Jews, Pagans, and other non-believers. Pogroms, crusades, inquisitions, witch trials. From late antiquity until quite recently in modern history the marriage of Church with the temporal powers of the world has frequently been the catalyst for many evils which were, horrifically, done in the name of Christ. These are historic sins of the Christian Church.

I say they are the sins of the Christian Church, because I reject the idea that this was a "false church", it was very much Christ's Church that either bore responsibility directly through action, or indirectly by being complicit.

Real Christians did really bad things. That is as much part of our history as anything else as Christians living today. And it's something we have to own up to. Even if it wasn't "my church" that is really beside the point.

Those who claim a great apostasy or some other nonsense want to cast blame to "those others" and wash their hands; the problem of course is it doesn't work that way. And, by the same token, those who champion these things seek to justify evil in order to try and avoid criticism against the Church.

But the Church, our life-giving mother in Christ, is not above reproach. With eyes open, with humble hearts, with contrition, and with many tears we must confess our sins and seek to walk humbly with our God and pursue kindness, gentleness, mercy, and justice as Christ's people in this world.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[timothyu]

When talking of the backwardness of the world of man, this includes the Church

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.

 

[The Liturgist]

Constantine was Baptised in the last period of his life, by Eusebius. Constantine had wanted to be baptised for some time, and was hoping that he might be baptised in the River Jordan, however he did not get to make the trip and the ill health precluded that altogether. There were at the time concerns about post baptismal sin, so many put it off as long as they could, and that may have been a factor in Constantine's delay in Baptism.



I would have thought this was fairly evident and generally established Christian Theology. The Gospel account of the penitent thief on the cross should answer that for all of us. The truth is 'without doing anything' is indeed the issue, for be are saved by grace through faith not of works. That you have found it strangely necessary to capitalise Roman Catholics is indicative of a partisanship that may not be helpful in this discussion. The term Roman Catholic as implied as to referring to a particular branch of Christianity does not make a lot of sense before 1054.



In general it might be said that most Christians would have preferred Constantine to Diocletian or Licinius. Constantine did hold Christianity in high esteem, the lifelong faith of his mother, Helena. The new city , Nova Romanum that came to be called Constantinople was indeed dedicated to the Christian God, under the patronage of the Virgin Mother of God. I am not sure why we need to lol these things. I think most of us understood that you don't get Roman Catholicism, but thankyou for clarifying this point.



Constantine ordered and funded the production of 50 copies of the whole bible - in the days before printing and it is most likely that at least two of our most significant manuscripts for Biblical Research come from those copies. It is clear that Constantine saw a high value on the Scriptures. It is clear that both the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church place a high value on scripture, and it forms part of the sloid basis of all their liturgy.



It is one thing to suggest that the purpose of humankind is to give glory to God, however to argue that Sola Scripture is the point of life is fanciful. God did lead lead the Councils and the Church to establish the Canon of Scripture, which you rightly describe as 'the books'. You ask, 'who cares?' Most Christians care, The Catholic Church cares, the Orthodox Church cares, the Anglican Church cares, the Lutheran Church cares. It seems hard to understand how you can say Sola Scripture and then ask Who Cares?. It appears to be a disjointed juxtaposition. I am not at all certain that Martin Luther would have described his contribution to the development of Christianity in the way that your do.



I am not sure what your beef with Apostolic Succession is. I have never heard anyone suggest that it corrupted itself and Eastern Christianity fixed it. We stand in a tradition of faith that has history and continuity, and part of the expression of that unity in Christ is expressed in terms of Apostolic Succession. The ministry that Christ has handed to his Church is handed on from one generation to another. It is one faith, one body, and the idea of the historic episcopate is but one way of expressing it.



Luther rebelled (though I am not at all sure that was how Luther understood it) and the thesis nailed to the door of Wittenberg Cathedral give us good insight as to what Luther saw as key issues, together with his defence before the Diet of Worms. Central to this was the notion that Christian Life should be marked by repentance. To took issue with the idea of a treasury of merit, and the sale of indulgences which was being used as a method of fund raising for the new Basilica of St Peter in Rome.

Lutherans did have significant consultations with the Patriarch of Constantinople, however ultimately that came to nothing.



Jesus is the cornerstone on which God has built the Church. Let me encourage you to keep learning, because sometimes there are distortions in many circles, let me encourage you to read widely, and to think critically, and don't forget to say your prayers.

(On a side note. Your post may have been easier to read if you employed the use of paragraphs.)

While the 16th century dialogue between second generation Lutheran theologians and the Ecumenical Patriarch in Constantinople was not entirely successful, and it must be stressed this was not a dialogue between Luther and the Orthodox Church as a whole, but rather between very doctrinaire late 16th century Lutheran theologians and the Patriarch of Constantinople, more recent dialogue has been more successful.

 

[The Liturgist]

I have for many years maintained the position that there are two problematic streams of thought about Constantine that I've seen:

The one promoted by various Restorationist and Primitivist sects in which Constantine is a diabolical villain working to overthrow "True Christianity" by mingling it with Paganism and introducing a false religion that existed until the Reformation. This is stupid and obviously false.

Then there is also the view that Constantine was effectively all good, and that the coming together of Church and Empire was a good thing; that the union of ecclesiastical and temporal power is good. I think history is sufficient in demonstrating just how wrong this position is.

So therefore, what do I take as my position?

Constantine was a complex human person, and it is impossible to know all of his thoughts or what was in his heart. Was his conversion to Christianity genuine? I have no idea. Constantine did good things and Constantine did bad things. For example, Constantine's murder of Fausta and Crispus is obviously bad. Ending the persecutions against the Church? Good. Throughout his reign he both acted as Pontifex Maximus of Roman pagan religion; but he also granted Christian clergy the same rights and privileges under the law that was afforded to pagan priests. Constantine personally sponsored the building of churches and the printing of Bibles.

Constantine did good by calling together the bishops to meet and address the Arian controversy at Nicea; but Constantine did bad when he went against the Council of Nicea's rulings and deposed and exiled St. Athanasius the Great and had the heresiarch Arius placed on St. Mark's seat. Constantine in his later life sided with the anti-Nicene faction, and was eventually baptized on his deathbed by the Arian heretic, Eusebius of Nicomedia.

Constantine's legacy is complicated and messy. His successors, Constantinus and Constans were themselves split between loyalties to the Nicene and Arian factions--with ultimately Constantinus' Arian predilections winning with the death of Constans. Continuing the wound in the Church, and the struggle between Athanasius and "the world" for which he is remembered for his many forced exiles--Athanasius contra Mundum.

But it wasn't under Constantine that Church and State truly came together, that would not happen until the reign of Theodosius I, a devout adherent to the Nicene confession, and also the one responsible for bringing together the Council of Constantinople to reaffirm Nicea and address the Macedonian controversy. Theodosius also signed the Edict of Thessalonika, which made Christianity the official state religion of the Roman Empire.

It is only after Theodosius that we see the fruits of this. Only six years after Theodosius' edict Priscillian, a heretic, was put to death by the state.

It is in the context of Church-and-State that the worst things perpetrated in the name of Christ have taken place: the execution of heretics, Jews, Pagans, and other non-believers. Pogroms, crusades, inquisitions, witch trials. From late antiquity until quite recently in modern history the marriage of Church with the temporal powers of the world has frequently been the catalyst for many evils which were, horrifically, done in the name of Christ. These are historic sins of the Christian Church.

I say they are the sins of the Christian Church, because I reject the idea that this was a "false church", it was very much Christ's Church that either bore responsibility directly through action, or indirectly by being complicit.

Real Christians did really bad things. That is as much part of our history as anything else as Christians living today. And it's something we have to own up to. Even if it wasn't "my church" that is really beside the point.

Those who claim a great apostasy or some other nonsense want to cast blame to "those others" and wash their hands; the problem of course is it doesn't work that way. And, by the same token, those who champion these things seek to justify evil in order to try and avoid criticism against the Church.

But the Church, our life-giving mother in Christ, is not above reproach. With eyes open, with humble hearts, with contrition, and with many tears we must confess our sins and seek to walk humbly with our God and pursue kindness, gentleness, mercy, and justice as Christ's people in this world.

-CryptoLutheran

This is the best and most balanced analysis of Constantine I have read on CF.com. And I am also heartened to see mention of Eusebius of Nicomedia, whose villainy and largely successful conspiracy to influence St. Constantine and his heirs to act against Athanasius and ultimately Nicene Christianity, I have discussed in other threads.

 

[hedrick]

I don't actually have much of a gripe with Constantine. He was trying to hold his empire together, and I think he had at least some admiration for Christianity.

My gripe is with the Christian leaders. They had for quite some time placed way too high a priority on conforming to doctrines which where way too loosely connected with the core of Christianity, and they were too willing to pronounce people heretics and try to eject them. Getting into bed with the State gave them too much power to do this.

I admit that things got worse as time went on. But I think people who were more attuned to Jesus would have assured Constantine that the Church could provide the unity he wanted without having to agree on everything.

In fact Nicea really did try to accommodate moderates on both sides, but the approach of putting the State behind doctrinal conformity was still dangerous, and it's hard to see it as having much to do with Jesus.

 

[RDKirk]

IGetting into bed with the State gave them too much power to do this.
<snip>
In fact Nicea really did try to accommodate moderates on both sides, but the approach of putting the State behind doctrinal conformity was still dangerous, and it's hard to see it as having much to do with Jesus.

These two statements entirely. This is essentially a failure to resist the third temptation offered to Jesus by Satan.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

I don't actually have much of a gripe with Constantine. He was trying to hold his empire together, and I think he had at least some admiration for Christianity.

My gripe is with the Christian leaders. They had for quite some time placed way too high a priority on conforming to doctrines which where way too loosely connected with the core of Christianity, and they were too willing to pronounce people heretics and try to eject them. Getting into bed with the State gave them too much power to do this.

I admit that things got worse as time went on. But I think people who were more attuned to Jesus would have assured Constantine that the Church could provide the unity he wanted without having to agree on everything.

In fact Nicea really did try to accommodate moderates on both sides, but the approach of putting the State behind doctrinal conformity was still dangerous, and it's hard to see it as having much to do with Jesus.

Christology and who Christ is would seem like pretty core Ideas of the Christian faith. If we can't even agree on who Christ is, let alone who God is, then what does that say about the worship we have?

Yet what would have been the alternative in your view? The Church continuing to lack power, that power more or less remaining in the hands of Emperor and Nobles alone with no one able to effectively counter it. In the sort of solution you are proposing, why does Emperor Theodosius have to listen to Saint Ambrose in a world where the Church has no power?

The Church having that sort of powerful position in society is no more dangerous than anyone else having it. In the end, someone has to wield to it.

 

[timothyu]

The Church having that sort of powerful position in society is no more dangerous than anyone else having it. In the end, someone has to wield to it.

The church was never meant to wield power in the world of man. It represented another Kingdom built upon opposing principles. What you suggest is no different than what the Jews were looking for in a leader at the time of the crucifixion, a worldly king.

 

[hedrick]

Christology and who Christ is would seem like pretty core Ideas of the Christian faith. If we can't even agree on who Christ is, let alone who God is, then what does that say about the worship we have?

That Jesus is the Son of God is important. But the NT describes this in a number of ways. Mandating a specific pseudo philosophical explanation is a different thing. I think the doctrinal discussions about Christology were useful. I’m interested in Christology myself. But the Church has been far too willing to judge people based on speculative theology.

 

[Taodeching]

Yet if all that never happened with Constantine you nor anyone else would be a Christian, it would have just been history. God ordained it all to happen exactly the way it did

 

[Philip_B]

That Jesus is the Son of God is important. But the NT describes this in a number of ways. Mandating a specific pseudo philosophical explanation is a different thing. I think the doctrinal discussions about Christology were useful. I’m interested in Christology myself. But the Church has been far too willing to judge people based on speculative theology.

We, sadly, did not truly resolve the Arian controversy by Councils and it remains live today, as does, even more sadly, Donatism.