Did Constantine help or hinder the mission of the Church?
<=”" h2=”">
The mission of the church was once well articulated by its founding member.
The gospel of Mark records Jesus as saying:”…Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation.” (Mark 16:15)
The gospel of Matthew records Jesus as saying: “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.” (Matt 28:19-20)
If we are to take these statements as our foundation, we can start to investigate our topic, being did Constantine help or hinder the mission of the Church? Coupled with this investigation is the relationship of the Church and State before, during and after this time. Further exploration on this topic will detail the historical account of Constantine’s conversion, then the benefits the Church received under Constantine’s patronage and its affect on the Church.
Since the issue of its mission, the church has endured many waves of persecution.[1] The “dark hour of the Great Persecution”[2] ended when Emperor Constantine converted from Paganism to Christianity.
This event occurred one year before his important battle against Maxentius and Maximin at the Milvian Bridge, it is reported that: “Constantine had lost all confidence in the national gods and turned to the God of the Christians.” [3]
At this time, Constantine introduced an edict of toleration towards the Christians that ended the State sanctioned persecution against them.
The motivation for Constantine’s conversion was due to a vision. According to Eusebius, Constantine was instructed to take the sign of the Cross as his standard. This vision was quite explicit with “By this sign, conquer!” was written in the sky reassuring him of victory. Constantine did this and marched to victory a year later. [4] � Afterwards the policy of toleration was perpetuated marking a turning point for the Empire as well as the Church.
In his poem Piers Plowman, William Langland eloquently articulated the argument that the changes Constantine instituted were negative:
When the kindness of Constantine gave Name Holy Church
Endowments in lands and leases, lordships and servants,
The Romans heard an angel cry on high above them:
‘This day dos ecclesiae have drunk venom
And all who have Peter’s power are poisoned forever.’ [5]
This certainly paints a bleak picture of the Church but does this fairly describe the situation or does it fail to capture the detail of a complex situation?
There were definitely benefits to be gained from ‘the kindness of Constantine’, as Langland notes, the Church was endowed with many gifts.
Constantine ‘s favour allowed the construction of Churches devoted to Christian worship as opposed to meeting in homes as was the current practice.
Bishops and preachers were retained by the State on liberal salaries and were consulted when important decisions had to be made regarding the Empire.
Sunday was even declared a public holiday, a day of rest where ordinary work was forbidden. [6]
These points do not easily lead to the conclusion that ‘ecclesiae have drunk venom’.
The best positions in the State and community were now made available exclusively to Christians. The Bishops were instilled with “equal authority with the magistrates” [7] and before long they ruled in large cities as Pagan Governors had formerly done. [8]
At this point the Church had moved from its humble beginnings of individuals meeting together in their houses to an organization endowed with fortune and power.
Under these conditions, it did not take very long for people to be attracted to the Church en mass, not because of the truth of the Gospel but because the Church was now a fashionable institution. Many pagans were converting motivated by personal gain not heart conversion to the faith, [9] seeking position and promotion in places of power now only available to Christians.
Jesus condemns this action: “I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs but because you ate the loaves and had your fill.” (Jn 6:26) They came to the Church to eat their fill but I don’t think this was unreasonable.
For the first time the Christians were in a position to deny others as they had been denied. It appears that they had not learnt from their persecution but had started to persecute others that were different from them.
Constantine ‘s kindness changed believers on the outside. Instead of meeting in homes as had been the custom for the past three hundred years, Christians now congregated in large buildings called churches.
The construction of these ‘Churches’ indicates the close relationship the Church and State now had attained: “These were not shaped like pagan temples, but like the government civic auditoriums.” [10]
“Instead of primitive simplicity came pride and pomp, for the reproach of the cross turned into royal fame and glory. Christianity in its outward manifestation was promoted…the Church became a right ‘corporation’, and a worldly spirit entered into it.” [11]
The Bishop’s who ruled over cities did so in the same way the pagan governors had; they set examples of luxury which stood in opposition with Jesus’ teaching: “Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart.”(Matt 11:29) Their grand living stood contrary to the message they were tasked to spread.
The life of a Bishop changed in other ways: “more and more of a bishop’s time was occupied by what were really affairs of State.” [12] And their spiritual responsibilities suffered for it.
History has shown us time and again that with power comes the possibility of corruption. “Where church leaders were able to exercise political as well as spiritual authority, they did not enjoy any marked immunity from the universally corrupting tendency of power.” [13] This unpleasant reality stands contrary to the holy life Jesus called them to and Constantine’s reasoning behind their appointment. Constantine reasoned in view of his generous patronage, “…the Church should in turn provide the State with a less corrupt administration of justice than that of its own lay judges.” [14] It is worth noting, Bishops were charged to administer justice in the current pagan structure, not redefine justice in Christian terms.
As the heads of leaders were turned to secular pursuit, so did the mission of the Church. It’s focus slowly changed from being those who go and disciple the nations to one that was “increasingly identified with imperial interests.” [15]
The established Church became an administration instrument that was substituted for the existing pagan system. The Church in many ways: “…assumed the form and function of the old Imperial Cult.” [16]
The Church was slowly being assimilated into the Roman culture just as many cultures before it had been. Even if the Church had the power to change the Empire it must be remembered, “the object of the Church was not to reform the empire but to save souls.” [17]
The Church was founded as an autonomous entity. In the years between Christ and Constantine, “It had developed its own organisation and its own methods of deciding what doctrine and worship were pleasing to God” [18]
The conversion of Constantine and his ideas of what the Church should be eventually clashed with the Churches view of its autonomy.
Constantine drew from Roman history and its definition of State to claim that his patronage over the Church was justified and should result in Church submitting to his authority.
In the Roman concept of State, “religion was a department, and a very important one, of government. It was one of the prime duties of the government to maintain the peace of the gods… Magistrates [were] assisted by experts such as soothsayers and priests.” [19] Though the insight they brought was not considered infallible, their roll was in an advisory capacity.
Constantine felt justified on these grounds to see that his patronage was rewarded. He did not want to have a voice in the Church but rather to be the voice of the Church. “It was his task to secure God’s favour on the empire, by securing, by force if necessary, that his subjects worshipped God in a manner pleasing to Him.” [20] The Churches response to this situation was to maintain the status quo.
“The imperial patronage of Christianity was the cause of another momentous and unfortunate precedent. The Christian leaders were so grateful to Constantine for his favour that they allowed him to have more say in internal church affairs than was his due.” [21]
The Church was convinced and began to submit matters of dispute before him.
Constantine surrounded himself with experts and generally drew on their knowledge to supplement his own in the decision-making process. In fact, “he expresses an implicit faith in the divine inspiration of assemblies of bishops” [22] These assemblies however were convened by Constantine, who also held the right to guide its deliberations, determine its composition and review the outcomes. And since Constantine was the first person to ever call a general assembly of the whole Church, a precedent was established that held for centuries stating that only the Emperor could call such an assembly.
From this the concept of ‘C?saropapism’ was born. The doctrine that the secular sovereign is by the grace of God supreme governor of the Church within his dominions and is divinely authorised to dictate the religious beliefs of his subjects.” footnote’> [23]
This dramatically changed the Churches mission, aligning it with the mission of the Empire. Constantine adopted the Church and reared by it but what lay at the centre of his motivations?
There are those who have doubts about if Constantine ever was true convert. [24] During the construction of Constantinople (a city he build from the ground up) he commissioned the construction of pagan temples as well as church buildings. He ordered that each church building be named after a New Testament Christian: “Because pagan temples had always been named after pagan gods.” [25]
There are also those that see Constantine’s conversion as politically motivated. Just as his predecessors had used persecution of the Christians as a political tool, it is said that Constantine embraced them for the same reason. [26] The Sunday holiday makes a very good case for this:
“To emphasis the homogenous nature of the new pagan-Christian religion, the state decreed that the first day of the week would be a holiday…to encourage pagans to observe it along with Christians. Rather than calling it ‘the Lords Day’ or something, they retained… ‘day of the Sun.’” [27]
Political motivation also makes sense if Constantine were trying to break the power base of the established pagan religion. By introducing the Christian Church as the state religion he could manipulate it while it was still an infant and steal its innocence while overwhelming it with gifts.
That is for the most part speculation but it is not without precedent in the ancient world.
Akhenaten father of Tutankhamen instituted a change of the state religion from Ra to the sun god Aten. This for all intents and purposes broke the political stranglehold of the priesthood. He could now reform <=”" st1:country-region=”">, confiscating the land and treasury of each temple.
There are also those who see no reason to doubt the authenticity of Constantine’s conversion. Some arguments are based in the knowledge of Constantine conversion occurring a year before the battle that made him sovereign of the entire Empire, this is important because there was no apparent political gain at the time. This and other arguments seem to stem from a misguided sense of historical preservation by grounding the foundation of the Church in a historical Constantine to legitimise its power rather than a historical Christ.
For my mind, Constantine seems to have embraced aspects of the Christian faith and assimilated that into the culture of the Empire, much the same way the Greek culture was.
He may have been sincere in his motivations but because he did not cast off paganism completely [28] a dark shadow is cast over all his motivations.
The appeal to Constantine’s zealousness in defending the unity of the Church gives the most promising argument for an authentic conversion. On the surface this is very appealing:
” Constantine was convinced of his indebtedness to the God of the Christians, and believed that the maintenance of unity in the Church was of supreme importance to Him. He therefore exerted himself especially when this unity seemed to be threatened, and his desire to mend the breach was usually much greater than his understanding of what caused it” [29]
Stepping over the line would not make Constantine’s motivations suspect in itself. Mostly it shows a youth full of zeal but lacking some Christian maturity. However his motivations seem to be unity for the sake of a functioning Empire not a functioning Church.
” Constantine repeatedly asserted his conviction that the unity of the Church was the condition and guarantee of the prosperity of the Empire…[which] suffered and sacrificed much, but in the end the dream of Constantine was realized, and a common religious belief became the cement which bound together the folk of East Rome.” [30]
Constantine also redefined the mission of the Church in so far as how success was measured. No longer was the goal to win souls for Christ, but to rule a stable Empire.
The success of the Church has become measured in imperial terms such as the victory over Maxentius and Maximin at the Milvian Type Bridge.
It seems for the most part that Langland’s appraisal of the situation is justified.
When the kindness of Constantine gave Name Holy Church
Endowments in lands and leases, lordships and servants,
The Romans heard an angel cry on high above them:
‘This day dos ecclesiae have drunk venom
And all who have Peter’s power are poisoned forever.’
The kindness of Constantine changed forever the relationship that the Church and State maintained.
The Church before Constantine was persecuted but strong, independent with its own methods of establishing correct doctrine and practice.
When it encountered the kindness of Constantine, what has been described as a ‘worldly spirit’ entered the Church that took an olive branch and the offer of sharing power, seemingly blinded to the consequences, perhaps seeing the gesture as well deserved reward for faithfulness.
The Church drank the venom of money and power and allowing it to be controlled by an individual who lacked Christian maturity and to be diluted by pagan practice and ritual.
Christianity became the state religion of the Roman Empire; or rather Christianity had merged with pagan Roman State religion. Instead of keeping a faith that persevered regardless of its surroundings, the Church was made a part of Roman culture.
The mission was compromised from a simple ‘Go’ to ‘Stop, you have arrived’.
