One of the favorite American complaints (conspiracy theory) is that Emperor Constantine ruined the Christian Church by bringing it into the government. For instance, Stanley Hauerwas claims:
This change in status of what it meant to be Christian, according to Yoder, called forth a new theological development, “namely the doctrine of the invisibility of the church.” Before Constantine, Christians assumed as a matter of faith that God was governing history even in the person of the emperor, but they knew that God was present in the church. After the Constantinian establishment, Christians knew that God was governing the world in Constantine, but they had to take it on faith that within the nominally Christian mass there was a community of true believers. No longer could being a Christian be identified with church membership, since many “Christians” in the church had not chosen to follow Christ. Now to be a Christian is transmuted to “inwardness.”
On another website, the following claim is made:
The devil still wanted to destroy the Church, but persecution was not the way to do it. Instead he came up with a much better plan. Instead of attacking the Church from the outside he would corrupt the church and destroy it FROM THE INSIDE. The devil’s new strategy was very simple: “IF YOU CAN’T BEAT THEM, JOIN THEM!” Don’t fight them, just shake hands with them and JOIN THEIR TEAM! Infiltrate their ranks! Let’s see how this strategy worked! …
What was the result of Constantine’s new approach to Christianity? Since being a Christian was the popular thing to do, MANY JOINED THE BANDWAGON! Thousands of heathen joined the church! Suddenly it seemed like the whole world was crowding into the church. Many of these people were Christians in name only. Can a person “name the name of Christ” but not really be a true Christian (see 2 Timothy 2:19)? …
As you can well imagine, many heathen customs and practices crept into the church. The pagan images and statues were still honored, but they were given “Christian” names such as Peter or Mary. Artemis (Diana) worship was changed to Mary worship. Also Isis, the Egyptian goddess was easily transformed into Mary. Worshippers of Isis called her “the Great Virgin” and “Mother of the God”. Some surviving images of Isis holding the child Horus are in a pose very similar to that of some early Christian Madonnas (showing Mary holding the infant Jesus). Heathen temples were consecrated and changed into churches. Heathen feasts were given Christian names. It was just the same old paganism or heathenism under a new name! The church had not conquered the world. THE WORLD HAD CONQUERED THE CHURCH! Paganism had put on new clothes but it was the same old paganism.
But, here is the problem. All too many American Evangelical Protestants would quickly subscribe to some version of the above views. They look at Church history and quickly use every negative item of history to show how damaged the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church became. Church history becomes the proving ground for how evil it is to connect Church and State. More than that, Church history becomes a convenient excuse for doing away with whatever doctrines and/or practices you disagree with. After all, it was Emperor Constantine who forced “those” doctrines upon the Church. I have always been amazed at how a Church that defied persecution up until Emperor Constantine so quickly gave up all its moral and theological stances in order to gain governmental advantages.
So what is the problem? We are in a time in American Church history when American Evangelicals are doing just what they complained led to the downfall of the Church. Notice that now there is an emphasis on the necessity of approving laws that will establish Christian morals as part of the nation’s legal code. (Note that these morals happen to agree with only one certain conservative political viewpoint, but they are labeled as THE true Biblical viewpoint.) What troubles me is that the same people who are insisting that these laws must be passed are still blindly insisting that Constantine ruined the Church. That is, while they are arguing that the mixture of Church and State is necessary because this is a Christian nation, they are also arguing that the mixture of Church and State is completely wrong when it supposedly happened back in Constantine’s time.
What they are not acknowledging is that whenever any group of believers in a particular religion achieve a certain mass, they have the political power to mold the society so that it will reflect their beliefs, both by forbidding what they find objectionable (abortion) and promoting what they find acceptable (the care of widows and orphans). Modern American society is in conflict. And, just like in Constantine’s time, there is a strong, and overt, pressure for the government to approve laws that support the morality of what politically conservative Christians claim is the predominant view of the majority of the citizens of this country.
I actually have no problem with that. That is the natural course of development that happens when a minority religion becomes the majority religion. But, here is that to which I object. I am fully and totally tired of those politically conservative American Evangelical Protestants who will still rail against Constantine and preach on Sundays about how what Orthodox Christians cherish is simply the result of some type of pagan conspiracy led by the devil. Frankly, they are in the process of repeating what they claim happened in Constantine’s time. So, why do they continue to claim that Constantine (and the devil) changed the Church without acknowledging that if that is true, then they must also claim that their own movement is a movement which also allows the world (the flesh, and the devil) to mold the Church? Somehow everything that happened in the years after Constantine is the world (and the devil) molding the Church. But, nothing that has been happening over the last 30 years in the USA is American political conservatism (and the devil) molding the American Church (both Catholic and Protestant).
Do you see the contradiction?
This Protestant always thought he got a bum rap!
Well Father, I honestly have never heard a Protestant preacher making the complaint to which you refer- however, you do have a valid response- and yes, I do see their contradiction- our sermon this morning was from Bishop Nicholas-wish you were there to hear it!
You seem to be under the impression that the views above are unique to American Protestantism…….. sorry, this view is very widely held in Europe also, and for very good reasons. Constantine opened the door to nominalism and the established church (which ever at the time) have encouraged its perpetuation. This is when church became an institution rather than a movement. It existed with a broken model who’s ethos was Come to us’ rather that christians go out to ‘them’.
As always, N.Americans seem to think they have the only view worthwhile about most things. There are very valid reasons for the anti-Constantine as there are also some positives as well….. here in Europe, we can see clearly the hundreds of years of Constantinianism modelled in churches, and the damage caused by a lack of transformation. To be born into something doesn’t make you a genuine follower….. we have plenty of examples where the circumcised heart is non-existent, and Jesus spoke out against this often. Constantine just made christianity respectable and accepted without persecution…… always a dangerous thing that breeds complacency and a lack of discipleship.
In over 60 years of being a protestant before I converted I have only heard the Orthodox Church mentioned once. That was by a returning missionary to Ukraine. Given that, it is obvious that like the person above, I have never heard the Constantine stuff mentioned. Having said that, I think the only true complaint protestants can legitimately make against Orthodoxy in America would be, “hey where are all the churches, why so few, why so hard to get into, why all the ethnic emphasis?” So there seems to be little reason to rag on the protestants when Orthodoxy has chosen to be so irrelevant in America.
I seem to have managed to bollix this posting, as it had little to actually do directly with the Orthodox Church. And yet, I have received two responses that say that they have never heard preaching against the Orthodox Church. I actually had to re-read my posting to see what had gone wrong.
The Orthodox Church is mentioned along with the Roman Catholic Church only because the objection to Constantine, to liturgy, to vestments, to icons, etc., cuts across both RC and Orthodox beliefs. In this country, it is the Roman Catholic Church that tends to get attacked on a very regular basis. So, no, you would not have heard sermons on the Orthodox in the USA. But, the bases of the attacks does also cut towards Orthodoxy.
I am not surprised that people have not heard that type of sermon. That is because it is the writings on Church history that you have to read, particularly those by Anabaptist influenced writers. There you find that viewpoint much more in abundance. As the writer from Europe commented, it is also strong in Europe. In passing, yes, I know that the USA is not the end all of theology. Actually, I consider the USA to be quite behind the English scholars and their theological capacity.
Finally, do not miss the main point. Many Anabaptist-influenced American Evangelicals are now engaging in precisely what they used to dislike, the mixing of Church and State by way of laws that attempt to enforce a type of Christian morality. My point was that this was considered a failure by the original Anabaptists and up until rather recently. My further point is that this type of mix is inevitable whenever a religion reaches a certain proportion of adherents in that culture.
Over the years from a few places here and there, I have heard the “Constantine ruined the church” line. I’ve spent most of my life in and am still involved in Evangelical circles. Those of us in traditions influenced by the Anabaptist tradition do look suspiciously at what Constantine did in connecting church and state, but I’m not so sure Evangelicals as a whole spend a lot of time beating the drum on that point. My own observation of Evangelical political thought is that we have a split personality over balancing political involvement and social implications of the Gospel, and fidelity in presenting the Gospel in a way uncolored by perceptions of political rhetoric. I sense and feel that tension in my own soul. However someone may or may not understand Constantine, I don’t think any of us would agree that the church should be put in the place of being a political tool of the state.
I suspect that Evangelicals today are actually doing the opposite of what they think Constantine did. If he allegedly made the Church the tool of the State (I would argue he did not do that; this would not really happen until the Erastian regimes of Protestant Western Europe following the Reformation and, sadly, in Russia after the abolition of the Patriarchate), well, it seems that THEY are trying to make the state the tool of the Church at least insofar as they feel they must use the state to impose a certain moral code on the country as a whole. In this effort, it seems they are willing to make common cause with people whose theology differs greatly from their own, whether it be Roman Catholic, Orthodox, or…Mormon.
I would also note that in pursuing such a strategy, they are, in effect, trying to do what the Pope actually did in the Middle Ages in the West, making the Church supreme over the secular powers. Of course, we know how THAT worked out!
Like I always say sometimes, “When the church and the state get in bed together, the kids are always ugly.”
I am not sure if I started this by my “curse you Constantine” but I am in full agreement with Fr.Ernesto. My rail on him was not a slam on RC or OC but had I gone on a bit more, I would have said what he said. Some Evangelicals in this country are repeating the error of having the church rule the government. This is an important discussion. I think it goes back to the Puritan notion that this is the New Israel and this is the place where the Kingdom of God will be realized (Postmillenielism). We criticize Islamic regimes but some want to establish a Christian regime.
Hello Fr. Ernesto,
Sorry I am way late here. I have not been reading blogs as much any more. But as an Anabaptist (Mennonite), I can’t help but comment on Constantine. Your post had me agreeing & saying “what!” at the same time. I agree that Evangelicals who complain about Constantine yet also push for political power are being hypocritical. Your above quotes seemed to be more worried about Paganism (which can stand for anything to an Evangelical, as you well know) than the Church-State divide. I’m not sure who are these “Anabaptist influenced Evangelicals” that are trying to gain political power? The only real Anabaptist influenced Evangelicals I know are in small left/progressive Evangelical crowd that have little political power that I can tell & they are surely not part of the Moral Majority crowd of Constantine Hypocrites.
As far as an Anabaptist view of Constantine:
First see 1 Samuel 8 where Israel asks for a King instead of Follwing God. They are told that they will have to follow the Horse & Chariots, The very horse & chariots that God threw into the sea to save Israel! But they insisted, there was a “regression” & they got an Earthly king.
Later we see Jesus Tempted by the devil to be an earthly king, to rule the earth on an earthly throne. He denied it.
The Church is supposed to be Christ’s body on earth. Yet with the first temptation of an Earthly kingdom or Christendom the church gave in. I believe it was a “regression”.
I am against State-Church, I am for Believer’s (follower’s) Church. I do not believe that Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, Luthern Churches are Pagan, I believe God is working in them as he does all Churches that call on his name. I have written too much already. I can’t even get into what the Evangelical Chruches will go into with Romney, Mormonism, Paganism, & Constantine! Peace in Christ.
Well, most of the big government of Constantine was the laws enacted by Diocletian. Constantine even went to the Gold standard, but he is no libertarian. Constantine fought in wars pacifists usually dislike him. Conservative evangelicals that are not pacifists need to reconsider Constantine who is strongly disliked by the pacifists left.
Good points, although the Novellae Constitutiones of Justinian a couple of centuries later and the follow-up Nomocanons over the next couple of centuries were also a further continuation of standardization in the Empire and the Church.