Discover

'Constantinian shift' is a term used by Anabaptist and Post-Christendom theologians to describe the political and theological aspects of the 4th century process of Constantine's legitimization of Christianity.

Contents

Historical context

Theological implications of shift

Criticisms

Bibliography

Notes

See also

External links

Historical context

This shift began in the 4th century around 312 when Constantine I adopted Christianity as his personal system of belief after the Battle of Milvian Bridge. His legions, who were victorious, fought under the "labarum", a standard with the first two Greek letters of Christ's name.
In 313 the Edict of Milan legitimized Christianity alongside other religions practiced in the Roman Empire. In 325, the First Council of Nicaea signalled consolidation of Christianity under an orthodoxy endorsed by Constantine though this did not make other Christian groups outside his definition illegal. In 380 Emperor Theodosius I made Christianity the Roman Empire's official religion (see Byzantine Empire and the Goths) and did enforce the edict in 392 he passed legislation prohibiting all pagan cultic worship.
During the 4th century, there was no such unity between church and state, though: In the course of the Arian controversy, leading trinitarian bishops such as Athanasius, Hilary of Poitiers, and Gregory of Nyssa were exiled by Arian emperors, as were leading Arian and Anomoean theologians such as Aëtius.
Towards the end of the century, bishop Ambrose of Milan made the powerful emperor Theodosius do penance for several months after the massacre of Thessalonica before admitting him again to the eucharist. On the other hand, only a few years later, Chrysostom who, as bishop of Constantinople was notorious for criticizing the excesses of the royal court, was eventually banished and died while traveling to his place of exile.

Theological implications of shift

Critics point to this shift of the beginning of the era when Christianity and the will of God gradually came to be identified with the state. This phenomenon is known as Caesaropapism. In its extreme form, such critics say, Christianity became little more than a religious justification for the exercise of power and a tool in the expansion and maintenance of empire, a Christian empire, also known as Christendom.
Augustine of Hippo, who originally had rejected violence in religious matters, later justified it theologically against those he considered heretics, such as the Donatists, who themselves violently harassed their opponents. Before him, Athanasius believed that violence was justified in weeding out heresies that could damn all future Christians.^[1] This continued a line of thought started by Athanasius who felt that any means was justified in repressing the Arian heresy.^[2] In 385, Priscillian, a bishop in Spain, was the first Christian to be executed for heresy, though the most prominent church leaders rejected this verdict.
Theologians critical of the Constantinian shift also see it as the point at which membership in the Christian church became associated with citizenship rather than a personal decision. American theologian Stanley Hauerwas names the shift as the foundation for the expression of Christianity in the United States today that is closely associated with patriotism and civil religion.

Criticisms

Vladimir Lossky in his discourse on theology in ''The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church'', argued that Western Christianity had changed its understanding of the Christian religion theologically, which he attributes to a disconnect with Eastern traditions, mainly due to the Middle East falling under Islamic rule and the Schism of 1054 between the Pope of Rome and the Orthodox churches of the Middle East.
Little of the historical events addressed in the "Constantinian shift" have been addressed in the West by Eastern Christian scholars or Eastern Christian theologians. There are a marked few, small exceptions.^[3]
From the Eastern Christian traditions, this part of their history does not contain any modern address or refutation as church doctrine. This disconnect also comes from historical distortions. Constantine continued to engage in imperial pagan religious practices. He also engaged in astrology even though possibly being addressed as a catechumen. It was only on his death bed that Constantine himself was baptized a Christian, though this was a common practice at the time. Constantine, after the council, eventually recalled Arius from exile and banished Athanasius of Alexandria to Trier.
Within a historical context, these two factions of Christianity (Arianism and Trinitarianism) did not resolve this conflict at the Council of Nicea.
As for the matter of state religion or the charge of Caesaropapism, none of the major world historical religious traditions has ever functioned within the framework of 'not' being a state religion at some point in history. In the Buddhist traditions, we see the theocracy of Tibet, which was only brought to an end by the Chinese invasion of Tibet in 1959. In the Hebrew tradition, this practice can be seen starting in the Tora with Abraham, followed by the Levite, and continuing through to the Sadducees. Islam's relationship to the state can be exemplified by the monarchy of Saudi Arabia, with its governing power coming from the monarchy, having the Quran and Shari'a as Saudi Arabia's constitution. Each of the above examplifies a civic power taking over or controlling a religious institution even though the civic power may not actually subscribe to the given religion or act in the best interests of the religious tradition it has co-opted.
After the Reformation, many European State Churches themselves were and remain Protestant (see Church of Denmark, Church of Norway, Church of Iceland (Protestant churches being outside the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox communion,) and also the Anglican state churches of the Church of England and the Anglican Church of Canada.
In the West, a very important contextual component of this conflict seems to lack recognition. Of the two main characters at the Nicene Council, both Athanasius and Arius were from the Egyptian church in Alexandria. As the teachings of Arius are the basis for the Council of Nicaea, so too can it be said that the teachings of St Athanasius, St Cyril of Alexandria were the basis of the Council of Chalcedon through Eutyches. So to give to the idea that a shift or change in Christianity's validitity or sincerety should be attributed to Constantine would be to take the incidents out of historical context and give far too much weight to Emperor Constantine's legalization of Christianity in the Roman Empire. Nor does the Constantinian shift take into account the climate at the time in the Roman Empire and the effects of both Christians and Christian sectarians on the stability of the empire.
The conclusions of Constantinian shift would be to deny an active movement within the Christian communities of the time, and that movement's historical significance to the clarification of what it meant specifically to be a Christian ie Orthodox movement. ^[4], ^[5]
The theory of a Constantinian shift also denies the history that followed Constantine's legalization of Christianity as well as specifics that proceeded it, a history that contained a brief unity between the Arians and Trinitarians. When Julian the Apostate ascended after Constantine II to the throne of the Eastern Roman Empire, Julian then began to reinstate paganism (see Neoplatonism and theurgy) at the expense of Christianity. The theory of the shift 'completely denies' the existence of the two Arian Roman Emperors after Constantine the I, Constantius II (Constantine's son) and Flavius Iulius Valens who ruled Byzantium after the death of Constantine. A point to note here is that though Theodosius I did institute Christianity as a Roman Empire State religion, caused by the Gothic War (376–382), it was short lived. One decisive moment was the Battle of Chalons in 451 piting Christian against the Pagan Huns. As well as Byzantium being also sacked by the Goths the Christianity that was instituted by Theodosius I, was not the one embraced by the ruling Goths (see Huneric of the Vandals and Fritigern). Also see Belisarius.
While being in the status of state religion none could guarantee not being removed from this position (see Julian the apostate), no religious tradition appears to have been able to keep such a role permanently either , with the possible exceptions being in the Muslim world (see Turkey as a possible Muslim example of Church and State separation). With pre-Christian pagan empires being run by the emperor as a designated pagan god.
This criteria also appears to be unsatisfiable in that either the religion is subjective to the state aka Caesaropapism or the religious tradition is the state aka Theocracy. Either characteristic being depicted as a negative one.
Support for the theory of a Constantian shift also would be to deny that Constantine considered himself to be partial or sympathetic to Arianism due to the influence of his historian, Eusebius of Caesarea, as well as the Arian opposition leader (and relative to Constantine I), Eusebius of Nicomedia. Eusebius of Nicomedia was the person Constantine had chosen to perform Constantine's baptism. Eusebius of Caesarea's Conflict with Athanasius of Alexandria and Marcellus of Ancyra influenced Constantine to reinstate Arius, exile Athanasius and contributed to Marcellus being deposed for heresy. In conclusion to claim such a thing as a Constantinian shift would be a reductionistic approach which denies in the ensuing historical struggles, that the Orthodox movement almost lost out to the Arian movement. It is to attempt to use the idea that we can superimpose upon the past our modern morals and perspectives. To suggest that an idea (of separation of church and state) existed at the time of Constantine and there was some place in the world were a society practiced separation of church and state which is patently untrue (and Constantine refused to follow the example). So to say that Constantian was imposing onto Christianity an orthdoxy that he espoused would be to deny the historical context. The Constantinian shift does not acknowledge the power of the Arian sectarians and or the influence over Constantine I both the Eusebiuses and Arians had.
The theory does however over simplify history to the point of creating a great many misconceptions about the true struggles and difficulties of the Christian church after it's legalization.

Bibliography

★ Timothy Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius, 1981

★ James Bulloch, From Pilate to Constantine, 1981

★ Alistair Kee, Constantine Versus Christ, 1982

★ Ramsay MacMullan, Christianising the Roman Empire, 1984

★ Roger E. Olson, The Story of Christian Theology, 1999

Notes

1. Olson, 172
2. Barnes, 230.
3. The Orthodox Church by Kallistos Ware St. Vladimir's Seminary Press 1995 ISBN-13: 978-0913836583
4. Kallistos Ware
5. Communion and Intercommunion (Light & Life, 1980, ISBN 0-937032-20-4)

See also

★ Christian anarchism

★ Caesaropapism

★ Early Christianity

★ Great Apostasy

★ Sacralism

★ Donatists

★ Constantinople

External links

★ The Powers and God's Providential Rule: Church and State - article discusses the effect of the Constantinian shift on the church from an Anabaptist perspective

★ Social Constantinianism - an Evangelical perspective on the Constantinian shift

★ The First Missionary War - a non-Christian historical perspective on the Constantinian shift

★ Sobornost Inter-Christian community website dedicated to addressing the conflicts between Western Christianity and Eastern Orthodoxy.

★ [1] - Basil's Struggle with Arianism after Constantine.