Why is Constantine not a widely renowned Christian figure?

[Thekla]

It is hardly a secret that his conversion had more to do with political expediency than conviction.

Oh - and who shouted his heart's whispers to you

 

[LamorakDesGalis]

The Roman Emperor Constantine was the first Roman Emperor to convert to Christianity and he popularized it all over the massive Empire. He even issued the Edict of Milan, legalizing Christian worship all over the empire.

In 313, the date for the Edict of Milan, Constantine was ruler over just the Western half of the empire. Christians made up only about 10% of the population in the West, while in the East Christians made up 40-50% of the population.

Churches and church buildings didn't expand significantly after Constantine became emperor. That suggests slow and steady growth before and after Constantine became emperor. Paganism was widespread in rural areas. In the Eastern part of the empire, even though dominated by Christian emperors, paganism persisted until at least 500-600 AD.

If it wasnt for Constantine, Christianity wouldnt have spread over Europe as it did..our western culture was so influenced by the Roman culture, if it wasnt for Constantine, many of the West would still be worshiping Pagan Roman gods, or another religion which would have filled the void.

Constantine actually shifted his center of power away from the West and Rome and to the East at Constantinople, called the New Rome. This eventually left the Western half of the empire - pagans, Christians and all - in isolation against Germanic tribes and fend for themselves. Christianity was a minority in the West, and despite the political turmoil, nameless Christians steadily won over their pagan neighbors to Christianity in the centuries following Constantine.

So why isnt Constantine a renowened figure in Christianity ? In all my catholic education and life I have never heard his name, or what he did. Only recently in a history class I did.

Or maybe he is, and its just where I grew up?

He is called "the Great" - primarily for his military victories and unifying the empire under one emperor again. Even though he legalized Christianity and ended the persecutions, he wasn't a perfect man and had his shortcomings.

He is honored more in the East than the West (in Rome), probably because he rescued the Eastern Christians from persecution. After the Edict of Milan in 320, the Eastern emperor Licinius began persecuting the Christians in the East again, so Constantine invaded and defeated Licinius.


LDG

 

[Biblicist]

[FONT=&quot]Lesliedellow (# 20)[/FONT]

It is hardly a secret that his conversion had more to do with political expediency than conviction.

I think that your comment reflects how many within the Pentecostal and Evangelical folds view Constantine.

As the Church was thriving throughout the Roman Empire in spite of periods of extreme persecution it’s hard to see that his influence had any real positive effect at all. Even though the Church had no central governmental authority it was still able to grow and spread so we had no real need for him. Soon after his annexation of the Church into the Roman fold we now begin to find ‘evangelists’ being accompanied by Roman legions and legal emissaries.

I’m of the opinion that if Constantine or any other subsequent Emperor had not assimilated the Church into the Empire then the Gospel may have soon spread throughout the world and had a far greater influence on many people groups more than what it had.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

[FONT=&quot]Lesliedellow (# 20)[/FONT]
I think that your comment reflects how many within the Pentecostal and Evangelical folds view Constantine.

As the Church was thriving throughout the Roman Empire in spite of periods of extreme persecution it’s hard to see that his influence had any real positive effect at all. Even though the Church had no central governmental authority it was still able to grow and spread so we had no real need for him. Soon after his annexation of the Church into the Roman fold we now begin to find ‘evangelists’ being accompanied by Roman legions and legal emissaries.

I’m of the opinion that if Constantine or any other subsequent Emperor had not assimilated the Church into the Empire then the Gospel may have soon spread throughout the world and had a far greater influence on many people groups more than what it had.

For what it's worth, Christianity did spread to the farthest reaches of the known world fairly early on.

It reached China no later than the 7th century, we have artifacts from that period written in both Aramaic and Chinese; Aramaic because the Christians who reached China were Syrian Christians, more specifically Nestorians.

Most people believed that past the southern desert in Africa there was no habitable land, even so the Ethiopians were converted in the 4th century.

The Gospel did spread to places elsewhere in the world, as they became known to the Christian world.

St. Francis Xavier and Jesuit missions to Japan established a Christian community there that has continued to exist until the present day, in spite of the persecutions they suffered under the Tokugawa shogunate and after. Just to name one example.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Biblicist]

CryptoLutheran (# 24),

You’ve made some very pertinent comments about the early history of the Church.

Even though the church certainly expanded into the far areas of the earth, its impact seems to have been limited to a belief system that seemed to expound the teachings of the “man Jesus” more than a powerful risen Saviour who could change the world.

The weakness of the institutionalised church seems to have made it an easy target for Islam as it conquered North Africa and decimated the Church and of course the inherent weaknesses of the Eastern Church found it faltering under the same pressure.

Even though there have been examples of tokenism within countries such as India, China and Japan where the teaching of Jesus have possibly remained; how more effective could the Church have been in these regions if instead of producing merely a handful of “Christ-followers” that the Church could have presented a powerful God-Saviour who would have given the Spirit of God to these same people, instead of us seeing "Christ-followers" we would have seen myriads of disciples.

I believe that if the Church had not been usurped by powerful secular interests that its testimony could have been far more powerful and effective. The problem when any denomination gains virtual absolute temporal power within any country is that it tends to be more concerned with its own physical interests than it is with showing concern for spreading the Gospel of Christ.

In my line of thinking, if Constantine or any subsequent Emperor had not annexed a sizable proportion of the Church into the Empire, then it may have been possible to see the Kingdom of God returned maybe a thousand years before we will see it occur – I would not be surprised that this inbuilt delay was a part of God’s economy but this is probably more conjecture than anything else and may belong more to the realm of speculative philosophy than Theology.

Barry

 

[Thekla]

I'm not sure how the Church in the east was "weak" re: Islamic conquest ...
If you mean the attack on icons, yes the emperor did indeed waver on this matter leading to interior strife in the Church. But, this attempt at Islamicizing Christianity (whether one sees it as syncretism or just making Christianity more palatable to Islam) indeed failed.

 

[Doxology]

I believe he is not canonized in the Latin church because he chose to be baptized by the Arian bishop Eusebius of Nicodemia rather than an orthodox bishop which brings up the question of wether or not Constantine was a Catholic or an Arian in his own personal religious convictions. I believe that some of his sons were Arians.

 

[Yekcidmij]

He was a politcian, and a general.

.....I guess this is supposed to be a couple of bad marks? We could point to just about anybody with criteria like that - Moses, Joshua, David, Solomon, Josiah,

, and the debate still rages as to if he was even a christian at all.

Raging debate? And if there were a RAGING debate, how is it you decide whether or not someone was a REAL christian? Do you weigh the good and bad they did and see which comes out on top? Do YOU judge their actions to determine whether or not they are a REAL christian?

If im not mistaken he wasn't even baptised until he was on his deathbed.

Actually a common practice in the day.

 

[Thekla]

That he at the least had fully embraced Christianity by the end of his life is recorded; not every Christian has an "immediate conversion" like Paul, nor is every Christian without struggles over the course of their journey.

To persevere to the end is what we are all called to -- to be mindful of our own condition and walk, which is harder to do when speculating on the "condition" of others.

 

[Anoetos]

You all know he wasn't baptized until he was on his death bed, right?

That said, what really cannot be argued is that Constantine made Christianity the religion of choice for men who desired positions in government. The conclusion that this resulted in a fair number of false conversions is thus open to be considered. And then, we'd have to wonder if this didn't set a trend...The faith once delivered to the saints being widely considered a mere social expediency.

Anyway, we have no way of knowing for certain.

 

[Thekla]

You all know he wasn't baptized until he was on his death bed, right?

Yup. Not unusual at that time. Not unusual to baptize infants, either.

That said, what really cannot be argued is that Constantine made Christianity the religion of choice for men who desired positions in government. The conclusion that this resulted in a fair number of false conversions is thus open to be considered. And then, we'd have to wonder if this didn't set a trend...The faith once delivered to the saints being widely considered a mere social expediency.

This conclusion would assume that every conversion in the modern era must be authentic, that "networking" does not occur in any Christian group in later times (some denominations in the US became associated with better career prospects), that cultural emphasis (the US is a "Christian nation") has no effect on the decision to be or remain a Christian, and that every conversion that occurs for less than good reasons will always result in a false Christian by the end of the journey as well.

Anyway, we have no way of knowing for certain.

"Judge the righteous judgement ..."

 

[Anoetos]

Thekla,

Your point is well taken.

But surely we aren't arguing that sauce for the goose is indeed sauce for the gander?

 

[grasping the after wind]

The Roman Emperor Constantine was the first Roman Emperor to convert to Christianity and he popularized it all over the massive Empire. He even issued the Edict of Milan, legalizing Christian worship all over the empire.

If it wasnt for Constantine, Christianity wouldnt have spread over Europe as it did..our western culture was so influenced by the Roman culture, if it wasnt for Constantine, many of the West would still be worshiping Pagan Roman gods, or another religion which would have filled the void.

So why isnt Constantine a renowened figure in Christianity ? In all my catholic education and life I have never heard his name, or what he did. Only recently in a history class I did.

Or maybe he is, and its just where I grew up?

I think it is just where you grew up. I went to Catholic grammar school and Constantine was very much extolled and given credit for his accomplishment there.

 

[lismore]

The Roman Emperor Constantine was the first Roman Emperor to convert to Christianity and he popularized it all over the massive Empire. He even issued the Edict of Milan, legalizing Christian worship all over the empire.

If it wasnt for Constantine, Christianity wouldnt have spread over Europe as it did..our western culture was so influenced by the Roman culture, if it wasnt for Constantine, many of the West would still be worshiping Pagan Roman gods, or another religion which would have filled the void.

So why isnt Constantine a renowened figure in Christianity ? In all my catholic education and life I have never heard his name, or what he did. Only recently in a history class I did.

Or maybe he is, and its just where I grew up?

Hello there!

Some people say Philip was the first Christian Emperor, there was another one before Constantine as well.

Philip the Arab - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think why we hear so little about Constantine is that he is in many ways a very dark figure, although he did some good for the church, ending the persecution. While presiding over church councils he was also a practising pagan. He erected many pagan monuments in Constantinople and the ceremony of dedication was pagan. Although he seemed at the end to submit to a Christian baptism, before that he was a practising pagan.

At the same time he had himself appointed head of the church and the thirteenth apostle. He presided over church councils in which he can only have had a hazy idea of what was going on.

In the end those who did not agree with these proceedings were persecuted.

He had his son murdered, followed by his wife. Many of Constantine's laws were very cruel, people being burned alive, buried alive and having molten metal poured down their throats. An angry meglomaniac, prone to murderous outbursts of rage.

Having the church mixed in with state politics was not a good idea in some ways! The church became too rich, too worldly, too powerful too fast.

If we look at the life and example of Jesus, I don't think a Roman Warlord is the best candidate to venerate as a good disciple?

 

[Root of Jesse]

He is a saint in the Orthodox Church! I was chrismated with his name!


The reason why Protestants don't show any love for him or anything that he did is because, according to them, he replaced "true Christianity" with Roman Catholicism and brutally oppressed any and all non conforming Christians as well as founding today's Roman Catholic Church which does nothing but oppress the masses and bows down to their pope (yes, those are the almost exact words of several Baptists and Pentecostals I have met).

That "reasoning" originated in the 19th century by a man who did not read his history.

So true. Except that he did not found the Catholic Church, he legalized it. Christ founded it. The Holy Spirit protected it. Read the Early Church Fathers, and you see what Catholicism is, was, and will be.

 

[Aryeh is Here]

i would "judge" by his actions,. I.E. his continued Pagan worship after his "conversion".

 

[99percentatheism]

So true. Except that he did not found the Catholic Church, he legalized it. Christ founded it. The Holy Spirit protected it. Read the Early Church Fathers, and you see what Catholicism is, was, and will be.

Catholic as in its proper lexicon: Universal.

Certainly not what the pomp and stage show that the Roman Catholic church has put on for too many centuries. Something that the Apostles had nothing to do with I might add.

 

[E.C.]

So true. Except that he did not found the Catholic Church, he legalized it. Christ founded it. The Holy Spirit protected it. Read the Early Church Fathers, and you see what Catholicism is, was, and will be.

I was born and raised in the Roman Catholic Church, but left it after realizing that it was not the true Church. That is a long story which not need repeating in the thread because we are discussing St. Constantine and not my spiritual history.
Besides, if you reread the post correctly you'll see that what was said about Constantine is NOT my opinion, but the seemingly popular opinion among Protestants since the original post asked "why is Constantine looked down upon by Protestants".

 

[Anoetos]

Very simply, Protestantism is, in one sense, the political sense, an expression of dissent from authority. A basic tenet of evangelical Christianity is the necessity of a distinct separation of church and state. The union of church and state is, politically, what precipitated the Reformation and is understood by evangelicals to be a great evil which robs men of their liberty before God.

Constantine is seen to be the one who got the whole ball rolling.

Right, wrong, or indifferent, I think that's the crux of the biscuit...

 

[Root of Jesse]

Catholic as in its proper lexicon: Universal.

Certainly not what the pomp and stage show that the Roman Catholic church has put on for too many centuries. Something that the Apostles had nothing to do with I might add.

Catholic in it's Catholic sense.

I take it you would deny that an oak tree, for all it's grandeur and root system, wasn't the same as an acorn...

Of course! The Church has grown, from Mass being celebrated in homes to what it is today. But it's no stage show, except for those who don't know what's going on. The way you couch it, it's like some movie in Hollywood. Of course, the wise men show us that without an underlying substance, the gold, incense and myrrh mean little.