A few days ago, Randy and I were in the SMC library reading for the History of Christianity class. Other students were there, and the library was less than quiet. We persevered, reading section after section. At one point, we paused because a student at another table wanted to talk to us. At yet another table, a small group of students was having a conversation. One of them asked Randy what we were studying, and he replied, “Constantine.”
The questioner was a bright student with a passion for speaking about his faith. Thus, I was somewhat (but not totally) surprised when he responded with a fake snore, indicating that learning about Constantine was boring and irrelevant.
I would not call Constantine a stimulating voice of theology or spirituality, but he played an influential role in the establishment of early Christianity.
Constantine favored Christianity and provided many benefits to the followers of Jesus. At a time when Christianity could have vanished, God used that emperor to prolong its existence. Had God not used Constantine in that way, I wonder (1) if Christianity would have survived and/or (2) what other vessel God would have used to sustain the faithful followers of Christ.
At the time of Constantine, different groups of Christians disagreed about some fundamental principles of the faith. From early on, Christians had held two important beliefs. First, God was one. Second, Jesus was God. These beliefs resulted in an obvious question: What is the relationship between the Father and the Son?
Two Christian camps proposed early solutions to this problem. Adoptionism said that God the Father “adopted” Jesus (the Son) at some point after his humanly birth (possibly at his baptism). Sabellianism suggested that God was one and manifested in three forms (Father, Son, Spirirt), one at a time.
Those early schools of theological thought led to two church leaders who offered two conflicting views. Arius taught that God was one and unique, that the Son was subordinate to the Father in two ways (not co-existent and not of the same substance), that the Son was the perfect creation, and that the Son took on a human body but not a human spirit. Athanasius critiqued Arius and taught that Christ needed to be fully human and fully divine for humans’ salvation and that, therefore, the Son was the of same substance as the Father. (Thanks to Dr. Pratt for these insights!)
Constantine, the emperor who at that time was supporting the church, needed to know which group was the true church. His action in this matter quickened when he learned that his close friend, the church historian Eusebius, got caught in the conflict. Thus, the emperor ordered a council to be held in Nicaea in 325. The council’s decision favored Athanasius and condemned Arianism.
The council at Nicaea is known as the first ecumenical (universal) council of the early church, although its participants were almost exclusively from the Roman Empire (Robert Bruce Mullin, A Short World History of Christianity, 65). It decided that Christ was of “one substance with the Father.” Athanasius prevaled; Arius lost. Church leaders would continue discussing particulars.
Much of Christian theology’s understanding of the Father-Son relationship comes from this early episode in church history. Regardless what you think about Constantine and his impact on the church, we must agree that he played a key role in encouraging the early church to decide between two conflicting theological views.
Does this mean that the victor in the council at Nicaea was perfectly and eternally correct? Not necessarily. But without the council, Christianity may have splintered into a thousand pieces and lost both its coherency and its imperial support.
Of course, people have questioned whether Constantine was really a Christian. People also have yawned and even snored at his role in the history of Christianity. Nevertheless, God used him to continue the church’s existence. Through that process, the church took a major step in determining what Christians believe.
