Unexamined assumptions are incredibly fascinating. They get at the real reasons why we think and act the way we do. They lay bare our hypocrisies and excuses. They tell us who we really are rather than who we pretend to be.
One of the current trends in thinking--very popular, probably not well thought through--is to make Constantine the boogie man. Da Vinci Code certainly did this. If I remember right, Erwin McManus villified him in the Barbarian Call. Tony Jones' emergent book, Postmodern Youth Ministry does it. It's in for Constantine to be the villian.
Why? Because he used his power to move "Christianity" toward standarization. He did it in the interests of unifying the empire and reducing conflict, as I understand it. He was being practical, not ideological.
It's easy enough to see why Constantine is out. For good old Protestants, I think there is a connection made, consciously or unconsciously, between this movement toward consolidation of power among Christians and the emergence of the Catholic Church as a political entity.
We are also in a Zeitgeist of diversity, pluralism, and freedom. Forcing diverse groups to conform to a standard simply is not going to be a popular movement. Mind you, Constantine only made Christianity legal and pressured Christian leaders to come up with a commonly agreed faith. Constantine died before Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire under Theodosius. And the Nicene Creed also did not reach its standard form until after his death (AD381--the Council of Nicaea in 325 did issue a creed, but it was not in the form of the Nicene Creed). He thus perhaps gets more blame or credit than he deserves.
But here's my thought this semester. There was no Trinity as we understand it before Constantine. He in fact favored a Eusebian compromise in the debate between Arius and Athanasius, if I remember correctly (Christ of similar substance to the Father rather than Athansius' of the same substance). But for much of the 300's, Christianity was more Arian than Trinitarian, if I remember correctly (Christ the first of God's creations, of a different substance than the Father). There was no New Testament canon yet in its current form. The list of books we now use isn't even attested ever, anywhere until Athanasius' Easter letter of AD367. Only a Western synod then affirmed that canon politically in 397 in Carthage).
Here's my sense. God might have done it some other way, but if it were not for the series of events that Constantine put in motion, we might not have either the same New Testament we do today or believe in the Trinity as we do today. In short, would Christianity as we now consider it to be in its historical essence be conceivable if it weren't for Constantine?
So recognize, ye who hate Constantine, that you are perhaps hating what became essential boundaries between Judaism and Christianity.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Indeed, Christianity would be different. But the question is, would it be better or worse or JUST DIFFERENT without Constantine?
Or, would it even still exist?
And do you consider the existence of Christianity in its current form, with the canon we have and the creed we have a good thing? Is it good to include Revelation instead of Hermas? Is it better, dare I say it, to include Hebrews rather than 1 Clement, or whatever? Or is it even good to have a canon at all? I wonder if assuming these are good things is an unexamined assumption? ;)
And, yes, I agree that Constantine probably receives too much credit. He was more practical than ideological. I doubt he cared about these little insignificant squabbles between bishops and priests, except to the extent they might create unity. Ah, the irony!
Think of me as a consultant for "orthodox" Christianity. From a historically Christian point of view, these things are good, things that distinguish what we are from what we are not. The question I ask in posts like these is this: "What point of view must one assume in order to maintain Christian orthodoxy as a coherent concept" and "If one does not make those assumptions, what are the logical consequences."
If I read him right, Dunn thinks such post-Nicaean assumptions end up in a reductio ad absurdam. The classic Protestant trajectory, on the other hand, probably should lead to ecumenical dialog with Judaism, with Christians considering themselves that group of Jews who believe in the messiah. Or else it has also led to classical liberalism, where all religions are equally reaching out for the same spiritual realities.
So I suppose my main contention here is that classic Protestants can't have their cake and eat it too. The three positions I just mentioned all seem more or less coherent. The view I critique in this post, on the other hand, does not.
That makes sense given your position. I am less of a consultant for the orthodox and more of a historical critic. I would say that a certain form of Christianity became orthodox over time...and that's that. It is not a good thing. It is not a bad thing. It is a historical event, nothing more nor less. If Valentinus had became the bishop of Rome and instituted a different system, it would be another historical event. History may have unfolded differently, but I doubt things would be better or worse. I don't look at the Trinity as a good or bad thing, therefore. It is more of a historical curiosity.
Although, to the extent that among scholarship the traditional canon has led to the neglect of equally interesting historical and literary texts produced by ancient Jews and Christians, I find that troubling...at least among scholarship.
Just to let you know, even many Roman Catholics at the moment see Constantine as the boogie-man :) This one isn't Protestants alone.
But, back to a couple of assumptions in the post. First, Trinitarianism exists before Nicene, just in a little different form (Jesus is a bit of a problem). You see Origen, Tertullian, Irenaeus, and I would argue the Apologists all making a case for a Trinitarian God, although at times this God looks a little Neo-Platonic. BTW, see Lewis Ayres' book Nicaea and Its Legacy for a nice account of all this.
Second, I think the real critique of Constantine is his move to put the political on the same level as the church. I mean, the church would not be what it is today if he had not legalized Christianity and allowed it to exist. But, then, he saw himself as both political leader and leader of the Church (thus, it is he who calls Nicaea and not the Pope, who really is not there yet). He does this mostly to bring and maintain peace in the empire, but he seems to see the City of God as the City of Earth. So, here, he's kind of a problem. If he would have legalized Christianity and practiced it while allowing the bishops to take care of ecclesial matters, he would look much better. But, alas, many of the debates about Christian orthodoxy were as political as ecclesial - maybe it was just inevitable.
Anyway, Nate rambling is over. I just taught a course on Church in the World at Loyola where I dealt with this whole thing for a week and it was quite interesting. So, I have more than is needed to say.
Greetings Ken,
To me, the Constantine phenomenon represents the unforeseen results of both an institutionalized and secularized church. There were several periods of 'mass conversions' that seem more political than spiritual, from our modernist perspective. I suspect the Church does best as a counter-cultural entity in its host societies. Modern Christian movements have suffered from acceptance within the status quo and ultimately from our role as the defender of the same. Thus there is peril in success...in being accepted. The secular state nor secular culture will ever be truly Christian in this age. I am comfortable with a sense of seperation of church and state...until we have a theocracy.
Multi-disciplined classes are usually my favorites because they force multiple paradigms. However, I fear Syncretism as we use these same tools without critical engagement. I have tension between a natural thirst for knowledge and simplicity of the faith.
I am enjoying our recent Protestant interest in early Church Fathers...perhaps we are coming of age. "But here's my thought this semester. There was no Trinity as we understand it before Constantine." I am sure that you meant our understanding of the Trinity was not fully developed...and I am not sure that our minds have yet sufficiently wrapped around this mystery.
Surfing your blog as an older IWU online student. I have read Postmodern Youth Ministry, but must confess I am not a fan of the emergent movement. You have an amazing grasp of Christendom. I pray that I may be allowed to listen in.
Dr. Schenck, thank you for this post! I have been involved in some discussions with "emergent- sympathizers" and others on the issue of Constantine. I appreciate the sense and clarity with which you discuss our mutually held position. While most of the "boogy man" arguments are emotionally driven and biased from the books you cited, your argument is straightforward and historically based.
I agree with Pastor Al above. In what I have been reading and discussing elsewhere, the emergent church (though not entirely bad) is strongly against the institutional church. Therefore, it is only natural that they would villainize Constantine. Having been raised in the institutional church and seeing its historical workings, I disagree with the emergent church and other "anti-Constantines" on this point.
Thanks again for the insights! Hope your Christmas break is going well!
Jared, I consult for that department a lot too. "Each man in his time plays many roles."
Nate, so much to read! I've been reading Boyarin, so that angle was on my brain this morning.
Al and Phil, I think there is a lot of good in McManus and Jones (who themselves are quite different even from each other).
I'm not down on emergent--I just think a lot of emergents have overstated their case. Postmodernism is not a thing. To make it the latest thing is in fact to misunderstand it fundamentally.
I if the evangelicals are in a fad of deconstructing Constatinian Christianity somewhat because the Bibleheads taught us to do so with their fetish for the "original meaning" of Scripture which may have as its underlying assumption that the earliest form is best and "right"
The quest for the original meaning may be parallel to the quest for the original church-seeking to reestablish some pristine pre-Constatine, pre-building, pre-structured, church, a kind of Campbellite restorationism. Wesley was inclined this way in his search to recreate the "primitive church"
It is an interesting movement for it is a clever way to recreate something new by claiming to be recreating something old. And best of all, it gives the recreators a chance to banish the "pagan elements that have crept into organized religion" and to turn around and introduce their own pagan elements ;-)
It is fun to watch!
Sorry Ken I disagree I like to think that the Holy Spirit could have handled the theological truth without State help.
For me the problem is that Constantine by his actions lit the touch paper that led to this whole Church state business and ended up with Christianity which started out as a persecuted minority persecuting other minorities.
How did followers of a crucified God end up burning others at the stake I think the answer to that question has Constantine in it some where and so his so called conversion and his subsequent influence of the church will always be a wrong turn for the church.
Drawing from Jesus For President (Shane Claiborne) I'd also like to propose our natural tendency to be distrustful/anti government or establishment in human hands. As he puts forth, God didnt want there to be Kings and He was right. In that, God didnt need Constantine (as has been mentioned) and we, as post moderns or Christ followers in general, probably wouldnt have been terribly affected either way. I will say that I have been trying to see the big church/ establishment side of things more recently but it is hard when I hear or see the things that are said and done by Christians with very popular names or power.
Perhaps the reason that he gets so much flack is that he introduced an extra-biblical, pagan taint to Christianity in the name standardization.
I was reading an introduction to Augustine's City of God this week, and it was very interesting to me the extent to which the question of Christian versus pagan was really only coming to a head in the late 300's with Theodosius. I need to do some more reading about Constantine, but I'm left wondering what, if anything, he substantially did that we are complaining about.
Post a Comment