Friends, We often hear people of various stripes claim that the early Church radically changed after the legalisation of Christianity and the later acceptance of it as the state religion. Is there any basis for the claim?
A preliminary thought: Ambrose of Milan, in "On the Mysteries" Chapter II (about AD 387), speaks to the newly-baptized who had just gone through ritual and symbolic actions. Baptismal regeneration? Threefold Orders? Monarchical episcopate? Angelic dignity assigned to priestly offices? These are the words of Episcopalianism, not the Reformed, Non-denominational, Anabaptists, and such. Do the Reformed and others claim that Constantine allowed sacramentalism and superstition into the Church by his continuing paganism? How do Christians generally see the split between pre-300 and post-300 AD?
Well I would once have said Constantine changed everything, but a little scratching around the surface shows a suprising amount of theological continuity- if I could refer you here: http://forums.anglican.net/threads/obsession-with-anglo-catholics.378/page-3#post-6174 I did once answer a similar question. Though I didn't mention the threefold order- but that's present in Ignatius of Antioch, who advised readers to look upon the Bishop as you would Christ himself. Of course, he may well have been quite pioneer in the 3-fold ministry department but it evidently took off elsewhere. In many ways the changes were political and psychological as Christianity creeps out from under the shadows. We see the explosion of monasticism as the option for martyrdom disappears, monks and believers start demolishing pagan temples and places of learnings, Churches are built over their ruins, propitiatory sacrifice becomes a common idiom of expression for what is happening in the Eucharist (see Cyril of Jerusalem and John Chrysostom) as they no longer have to define themselves in contradistinction to pagan sacrifices... Most prominently though is the idea of the church recoursing to the Emperor as source of both bolstering the Church's authority but also as one of ordering the church's own life- the emperor was seen has having a spiritual role and significance...and for better or worse Christianity has been tied up with secular power ever since, Luther relied on the German Princes, the Roman Pontiff operated as a landowning Prince, the Byzantine church was subservient to the emperor and the russians failed to modify their theology of chruch-state relations and so often went along with the Soviet government. Many reformaiton-era churches in Europe are still established, and there is a naitonal tax in some countries for their upkeep. And in America of course, there's a very peculiar relation. And it is I think something biblically unexpected- we should tolerate those in power, Paul advises...but there's little explicit guidance from the NT on what christians should do with political power...
I'm glad you have biforcated the question; legalization of Christian religion and state establishment of Christian religion are two separate things that happened with Constantine. State establishment was carried over into the Roman Catholic Church, the Orthodox Church, the Church of England, Lutheranism, and even into Puritanism during Cromwell's time and in 17th century New England. The Reformed churches however advocated only the legalization of Christian Religion, having believed that Scripture teaches the Church to 'render to Caesar only what is Caesar's' and that the essential duty of the State is to wield only the universal 'moral' or 'natural' law. Aside: a third point of view comes from the Anabaptists, that State authority is not to be honored at all.
I have always, since my conversion from Papalism, agreed with the position you have just put forward, H. The institutionalisation of Christianity was the worst possible disaster for all the precious souls of humanity. By the 1400s the Archbishops of Trier owned vast tracts of land along the Rhine. Thanks a lot, Constantine. P. Sticks is right in saying it was mostly political and psychological, but I often wonder. When Constantine's Column was dedicated in Constantinople in AD 330, the emperor brought along a small pagan statue to put underneath the column with the Christian relics. At that moment, something was shown to be wrong. Even if Theodosius was the one to make Christianity the state religion (by the pressure of bishops, we might add), Constantine the Emancipator (and pagan) called Nicaea I, and built magnificent palaces of basilicas and churches. One might've thought that he was trying to destroy primitive simplicity and piety... because it worked well.
Will we see Constantine in heaven? How about Henry VIII? I think that we will NOT see them, but that doesn't mean that God didn't use them mightily for His own good purposes.
I wouldn't judge Constantine's faith. That's really for God to judge. I tend to view his conversion as a positive. Constantine ended persecution of the church, made it legal at long last and called a fmaous council that settled an important dispute in christian history - the church flourished. I'm sure Satan was there trying to bring worldliness into the church too at this period, the same could be said for the reformation which was primarily a good thing although some people misused the original aims for political and wrongful ends. I actually believe in the idea of a Christian nation. one reason why I am no longer Baptist I do think it is a desireable thing to see nations and governments to recognise Christ as their rightful Lord and enshrine that fact in legislation. But recognition of the church by the state should not mean the state has any control over it. The Church shoudl be liek the old testament prophets pointing out the wrong things done by the state and pointing them back to Christ This ideal will eventually be relaised totally at the second coming. Till then the church is to proclaim Christ to the world.
I know it's slightly offtopic but the Royal army chaplains badge (British) uses has the motto "in this sign conquor" which is a reference to Constantine's vision. The influence of this story lives on today
I consider this a positive period in Church history, even if later on abuses eventually crept and the wordliness of bishops prevailed.
I think there is. He doesn't appear to have interfered theologically in any major way, but he is accused of virtually buying the bishops.