Thoughts on Non-Violence: Constantine
November 27th, 2006 | by Scott |Here is hoping you all had a safe and peaceful thanksgiving. My commitment to nonviolence was threatened only when tempted to cold-cock an LSU fan. But that’s a different story.
I have ceased numbering my nonviolent entries. The further along we go I fear the rising number of posts on this subject might discourage new readers.
The early church was wholeheartedly committed to nonviolence. Their understanding of the life, example and teachings of Jesus led them live peaceable lives and to eschew the taking up of the sword. For those of us who have grown up in a society and culture where war is hardwired into our collective psyche, that is hard for us to comprehend.
Yet, that is the example of the early church: the way of the cross rather than the sword.
That changed when Christianity began the shift from an underground movement to the Church of the Empire in 313. The Edict of Milan made Christianity a legal and recognized religion in Roman culture.
There are far greater recounts of Constantine’s impact on Christianity (or better, Christendom) than I can provide in this space. However, allow me to make a few observations about this shift and its implications:
1. The blame does not lie singly upon Constantine. Yes, he had a highly perverted view of the cross. He used the message of Jesus for his own blood-thirsty needs. However, the church had suffered these types before. False teachers and manipulators of the gospel are woven through the Pauline epistles. The difference? Power. Both for an emperor seeking to solidify his reign and expand his reach. And power for a church that had long been oppressed and marginalized.
2. Christianity, to Constantine, was tactical. There is no indication, outside of a death-bed conversion, that Constantine viewed the way of Christ as being anything other than a means to an end. Persecuting Christians was a failed policy that needed to be revised and amended. The church was still thriving. A way to solidify any power base is to appeal to the burgeoning groups. His personal life and his bloodthirsty methods belie any Christian commitment.
3. Constantine bought the church. By paying the priests Constantine assured that allegiance between the Kingdom and the nation-state would be put to the greatest test. A test that the church, ultimately, would fail again and again. We still fail this often, today.
4. Constantine made military service compulsory for the priests. Until this time, Christians had largely refused military service. It would be just a few years later that only Christians could serve in the Roman military. Thus begins the melding of Christian duty and military service.
Howard Goeringer made a fascinating parallel between the life of Constantine and the great missionary, Paul:
–After his vision, Constantine continued killing, even his own family. After his vision, Paul laid down the sword.
–To Constantine, the cross was the way to victory in battle. To Paul, the cross was the way to reconciliation with enemies.
–Constantine spent his life wielding power. Paul spent his life proclaiming Christ’s power.
–Constantine founded a city named after himself. Paul founded churches in honor of Christ.
–Paul was baptized immediately signifying his conversion. Constantine waited until his dying day.
–Constantine used the church for his own evil purposes. Paul served the church.
This underscores how Christendom was totally unrecognizable in the face of what the church was called to be: nonviolent, conciliatory, lovers of enemies.
But the way of the nation-state is selfish, it seeks its own gains and interests. That is antithetical to the way of the cross.
Goeringer states:
To be violently coercive and lovingly Christ-like at the same time is impossible. The power Constantine represents corrupts. It does not cleanse. The nature of coercive power that forces persons to yield to another’s will is evil, not only in dictatorships, but in every form of human government, including democratic republics whose legal, judicial, legislative, and military systems, are also based on coercive and dominative power inherent in every nation-state. When the state speaks, Jesus is silenced. The name “Jesus” is never mentioned when matters of state are discussed. The state’s “God in general” is popular, but “Jesus in particular”, never. The God in which the state trusts is a catch-all God who is used to support the political rhetoric of the moment. The fatal flaw in the Constantinian compromise is the illusion that the nature of God revealed in Jesus is compatible with the nature of the state that they they coalesce and become one in mission to the glory of God. They cannot. As human history shows, they do not.
Constantine thought that he could use the power of Christianity to suit his own purposes. What he failed to realize is that the power of Christianity is never through manipulation, coercion, violence or force. The power of Christianity is never contained through a nation-state. The power of Christianity is not political in nature.
Instead the power of Christianity is found in the basin and the towel, the silent prayer of an anguished saint, the loving embrace of a fallen traveler, the compassionate reconciliation of aliens and strangers. The power of Christianity is not in a worldly structure but in a Kingdom. A Kingdom not made with flesh and blood. A Kingdom not made with swords, but with a cross.
The way of peace.
14 Responses to “Thoughts on Non-Violence: Constantine”
By jasonk on Nov 27, 2006 | Reply
First, I could only read about half of your post, because on my screen, your sidebar trespassed onto the article. So I did not get to read the whole thing, unfortunately.
Second, it must have been really hard for Constantine. Imagine what would happen if Bill Gates converted and joined your church (I’m not making a judgment on Gates, I don’t know where he stands with God. Just using an example). Rather than the church molding and facilitating change within his own life, his prestige and power might cause the opposite to happen–he would bring his secular pre-suppositions and morality into the church, and change the church.
Which is, I guess, the point you are making. Sometimes my students will debate whether Constantine’s conversion was good or bad for Christianity, but our problem is that we are working with limited vision. We cannot say with certainty if his heart was genuine when he converted, or if he merely was using Christianity as a tool to increase his power base, much like modern day politicians.
I would like to think that his heart was sincere, but like Bill Gates joining a small church, his conversion caused more problems than it solved, watering down the church, and forever changing the way Christians practice religion.
Great article. Or, at least the half I read was great ;>)
By Scott on Nov 27, 2006 | Reply
Jason, switch to Firefox and you won’t have that problem.
I understand your comparison to Gates, but I don’t think it applies. One, there is no indication that Constantine ever converted until he was on his deathbed. Two, his life was diametrically opposed to anything resembling Christian. He even murdered his own son because he was receiving more praise than he was. Third, for the comparison to truly work, Bill Gates would have to convert and then force the church to be spokespeople for Microsoft.
By Jason Bybee on Nov 27, 2006 | Reply
Scott,
Great post. I see where you’re going with the Gates comparison, JasonK, but I agree with Scott. In my limited understanding of his life, it would seem that his conversion was, as Scott stated, simply a means to an end.
Thanks for the comparison between Paul and Constantine. Very helpful stuff. You hinted at this in your post, but I’m still chomping at the bit to talk about how all of this should impact a modern day Christian’s involvement with the military, government, police force, etc. I look forward to reading your thoughts. Keep up the great work.
By greg on Nov 27, 2006 | Reply
Bill Gates would have to convert and then force the church to be spokespeople for Microsoft
That wouldn’t be too surprising
I thoughtthis was funny.
By Scott on Nov 27, 2006 | Reply
Jason, thanks. I hope to get to the current day stuff very soon. I’m going to attack the Just War Theory next.
The further I delve into this I notice a couple of things: how ingrained war is in our psyche. From memorials to holidays the veneration of all things war is firmly entrenched in America. I also notice how overwhelmingly the NT is pro-peace and the failure in history of violence to achieve any longterm beneficial results.
But, I’m ahead of myself.
By the way, since you are a big Christmas music fan, you must get Sufjan Steven’s new Christmas box set–5 CDs. It’s phenomenal.
By KS on Nov 27, 2006 | Reply
Great article.
But beware of using only certain sources, some tell of Constantine’s “vision” which is why he converted to Christianity earlier than on his deathbed. This occured in 313 AD, (Constantine died in 337 AD). There is also record of Constantine, having many less executions of his captured following his conversion for the many years before he died.
Constantine also had his son killed because of false accusations by his wife Fausta (claiming he was trying to take the thrown). He then learned his wife had lied to him and had her killed. Not a great time in his life, but sounds a little more rational, don’t you think.
The debate over Constanitines impact will be one that is discussed all over in Christian circles, most now think it was a bad thing it seems.
Onto the article… Very well said. I do think Christ does not further his kingdom by violence. Does that make service in the military wrong? I dont think it does, as long as one realizes he is not fighting for Christ’s kingdom.
By Scott on Nov 27, 2006 | Reply
KS, I concede your point that we can take different approaches to Constantine’s legacy and sincerity. And I agree.
It wasn’t that long ago that I taught classes extolling the work of Constantine in bringing Christianity to the forefront of the greater Roman world.
However, the MORE I study various sources the less I find that argument really holds much water for me. He had less executions? He still had them. And, despite the reasons, killing your son is killing your son. And there is also substantial proof that Constantine’s mother, Helena, trumped up those charges against Fausta. And, no, having your wife suffocated to death does not sound more rational to me.
But again, I don’t mean to just slag on Constantine. I realize that is the vogue. The bottom line is that the church became intoxicated by the power he dangled in front of them and they bit. And there began the blight that became Christendom.
I plan on creating a reading list that ties in all of my sources. I’ll get to that soon.
By jasonk on Nov 27, 2006 | Reply
Outside of a pretty good Clint Eastwood movie, I don’t know what Firefox is. You’ll have to school me.
“Today’s sermon brought to you by MS Office 2007. You can buy it after church using Visa. Its everywhere you want to be.”
Greg beat me to the point. History records Constantine’s conversion around 310. His baptism on his deathbed I always attributed to the “last rites,” which is basically baptism.
I still like my Gates illustration. Do you not think that the church would make sure all its computers were MS compatible, and encourage others to do the same, in support of a new brother? Okay, maybe I’m reaching a little bit here. But my point is that the church would not shape the convert, the convert would shape the church. And that is exactly what happened with Constantine. He was much to powerful for the church to tell him he was wrong. And once word of the Edict of Milan (313) was in place, the church became filled with people who were more interested in pleasing the emperor than in pleasing Christ, and that jacked up the whole thing.
Maybe God used Constantine to spread Christianity throughout the world.
By Scott on Nov 27, 2006 | Reply
Firefox is a browser like Internet Explorer, only far better. Do a search for Firefox, download it and you are in business.
If praying to the God of the Christians was evidence enough of conversion then you are right. But there are several problems with that: his continued reverence for the Sun god of Roman culture including continuing to use its likeness on the currency of the day and using its name for the Christian day of rest, Sunday.
I agree that Christians were powerless to stop Constantine from using Christianity for his purposes. The problem is that up until this point they would have resisted any use of Christianity for the perpetuation of the state.
By jasonk on Nov 27, 2006 | Reply
And by the time true believers realized what was going on, they were out voted by the many false converts who were just trying to stay in good standing with the emperor.
Imagine a business meeting where the richest and most powerful member of your church had a suggestion that was contrary to Scripture. Right or wrong, a lot of people would be in favor of it, so they would not run the risk of offending the rich and powerful.
Thus, church polity and theology is altered by people ignorant of theology, but well schooled in the arena of social politics.
By Scott on Nov 27, 2006 | Reply
This is an interest thought. I’m studying Philippians for my sermon this week. Here Paul is in prison. But Paul finds joy in chains. Why? Because it has given most of the brothers the boldness to preach without fear.
How far they slipped in 250 years.
And our greed is still prevalent, today.
By Phil Wilson on Nov 28, 2006 | Reply
“I’m going to attack the Just War Theory next.”
Interesting use of terms there.
By Scott on Nov 28, 2006 | Reply
It’s a full-scale frontal assault, Phil. And it’s fully justified.
By jasonk on Nov 28, 2006 | Reply
…yet, whole-heartedly non-violent ;>)