Constantine.

The Protestants I know almost universally revile the Roman Emperor Constantine.  He legalized and then endorsed and sponsored Christianity in the 4th century, ending centuries of persecution.  This wedding between Church and State continued well into the 20th century and still persists today in some places. 

I find a general agreement that the deal between the Church and the Empire, however and for whatever reason it was reached, did immense damage.  I understand the arguments, and largely agree.  A lot of Church-people complain that the Church got corrupted and basically became a lapdog for the State.  The Church became complicit in all kinds of atrocities, from the Crusades to the Inquisition, from slavery to countless wars, to colonialism.  Secular people see it differently.  They say religion corrupted the State and used it to enforce its morality, stamp out other religions, and prosecute sectarian wars.  I get it.  

The Eastern Church has a different view of this, generally, and see Constantine as a saint.  His establishment of Christianity took a lot of pressure off the Church so that survival was no longer an issue, enabling it to focus on developing its theology, spirituality, and mission.  But in the West, we often view this alliance between Church and State as a catastrophe from which the Church never recovered.  I think a lot of this illegitimately reads our contemporary sensibilities into the ancient past. 

I have often expressed criticism of the wedding between Church and State myself.  But I also wonder, frankly, if we wouldn't make the same deal were it offered to us today.

If the US government started actively reflecting and expressing in policy the stated values and goals of Progressive Protestantism, how much would we complain?  If the President regularly consulted with William Barber, Nadia Bolz-Weber, Brian McLaren, and Barbara Brown Taylor, would we object?  What if they poured a load of money into our churches and service agencies?  What if they even offered to assume the financial responsibility for paying our ministers?  Or wanted to use the military to free people from fascist dictators around the world?     

Hey, I remember how excited we were when an African-American, Progressive Protestant member of a UCC congregation got elected President.  Wouldn't we be ecstatic and overjoyed if most elected officials agreed and voted with us?  Are we going to say no to that?

Certainly, some of us would be nervous if this went too far, because we know the history and we have read Kierkegaard and understand the dangers of "Christendom".  But in the 4th century?  Were they going to pass up a deal that looked like the coming of the Kingdom of God?  I mean, the government that had been literally banning and even killing Christians for centuries, now does a 180 and offers to be their sponsors, patrons, and protectors?  I'm sure it seemed like a divine miracle!  

If this happened to us we would surely find ourselves tempted to think of all the good we could do with State power at our disposal!!  Think of the people we could lift out of poverty, and the sick to whom we could provide health care, the oppressed we could liberate, and the minorities we could empower!  We could make diversity, equity, and inclusion the law of the land!  Imagine a woke world, joining hands and joyfully singing together, "For everyone born, a place at the table"! 

And churches would fill up again because people would want to join the successful, powerful Progressive Protestant church near them. 

I hope you get the point that we don't have much cause to place ourselves over the Christians who accepted Constantine's offer in the 4th century.  We too want political power and influence.  We too want government to reflect our values.  We get access to some of this by living in a democracy.  Obviously, the Church in Constantine's time did not have that option, so they chose the deal that Constantine offered them.  It may have been unwise and ultimately disastrous, but I seriously doubt if we would act any differently.

Finally, I certainly do not make any argument for a restoration of Christendom, which strikes me as insane, anachronistic, and suicidal to the Church at this historical moment.  The Church finds itself in a freer and more creative and missionally productive place when separated from the State.  

Christendom/establishment also rendered the Church a lot weaker in many ways.  We saw an atrophy in our missional capacity that left us fairly paralyzed when the State finally took the separation seriously in the 1960's and stopped propping up Christianity in places like schools.  We had lost the tools to do our own evangelization, having left that to others, allowing the State to do it in its own self-serving way.  We have not recovered.

Neither do I hold that we have to forego seeking any political or economic influence.  We live in a democracy (at least for now), and we have a responsibility to live and express our faith in the world, which includes voting and lobbying for people and policies that reflect what Jesus teaches about the Reign of God.  Just remember that power corrupts, and if we do exercise any political clout or influence, to do it gently and with a lot of humility and circumspection.

All I want to do in this essay is buy a little slack for the Church and the decisions they made in the 4th century, and encourage some humility and self-awareness about our own approaches. 

+++++++