Where and when did the expression "Constantinian Christianity" originate? Who coined it?

[BartholomewB]

From time to time we hear (or read) the expression “Constantinian Christianity”. It seems to be a fairly recent term, though I don’t know exactly who originated it, and when. I found three names, Stanley Hauerwas, John Howard Yoder, and Cornel West, but whether it dates back earlier than any of these three, I don’t know. It seems to be used, invariably, in a derogatory sense, implying that “Constantinian Christianity” is an inferior, second-rate kind of religion. We don’t see people describing themselves as “Constantinian Christians." They only ever use this term to express their disapproval of other people.

Another term, the “Constantinian shift,” was coined to label specifically the event that led to the introduction of “Constantinian Christianity,” implicitly criticising Pope Sylvester for doing a deal with Constantine that he ought not to have done. I have seen it defined as “What happens to the church when worldly power is used to accomplish what God has given his people to do without such power.”

The three writers I named are certainly not Catholics, but the argument they are advancing seems to have some substance to it. It’s not just an obvious production-line fabrication of the common anti-Catholic, Chick Tract kind.

 

[HeDa]

EWTNs Called to Communion Aug 17th 2020

around 23 minutes into the programme dr David Anders talks about this.

 

[Hodos]

I had never heard of it till you saw the flood of books inspired by Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code. Essentially, this is a misnomer applied by opponents of the doctrine of the Trinity who mistakenly attribute the development of this doctrine as a fourth century innovation forced by Constantine on Christianity after the Council of Nicaea. What these people don’t realize is that the elements which comprise the doctrine of the Trinity are found throughout scripture, were defended and articulated by many of the pre-Nicene fathers, and that Constantine was actually upset to some extent with the results of Nicaea. He wanted there to be a compromise that incorporated the Arians back into the Church. He was actually perturbed that no compromise was created and that the schism between the orthodox party and the Arians continued. They also ignore the fact that Constantine was baptized by an Arian bishop, and that the primary defender of Nicene orthodoxy, Athanasius, was persecuted by Constantine’s successors who favored the Arian party.

 

[BartholomewB]

@HeDa and @Hodos, thank you both for your helpful replies,

Was there really something about this in the Da Vinci Code? I don’t remember that. When I saw those two expressions, Constantinian Christianity and the Constantinian shift, on the internet, say five years ago or even less, I didn’t recognize them and had to puzzle out what they were supposed to mean. An online acquaintance who describes himself as a “New Testament Christian” gave me his viewpoint and some background, but even he was unable to tell me who originated those terms and when. I mentioned him a few days ago in a post here at CAF:

Are our bishops not valid? Sacred Scripture

It’s a minority view held by certain groups of radical Protestants. I have had long, friendly conversations online with an adherent of one of these sects. Their argument can be summarized as follows: (1) Any true Christian church must be strictly modeled on the New Testament, by which they mean the specifications listed in the Pauline epistles. (2) A true church has no ordained clergy. In the NT, only Judaism had priests (hiereis). The NT churches had apostles, elders, and overseers (apostolo…

 

[Hodos]

Was there really something about this in the Da Vinci Code?

No, there were a number of kind of cult classic conspiracy theory books on the subject such as Holy Blood Holy Grail and the like that touched upon the premise of the Da Vinci Code. It’s just that Brown’s popular novel served as a springboard to attack Constantine and by extension the Council of Nicaea in a number of pseudo-scholarly works advanced by a lot of gnostic scholars. There is a big cult movement of gnostics and modalists/adoptionists who have renamed themselves as “New Testament Christians.” I have even heard them call themselves Quartodecemian Christians even though these are inaccurate names since they deny the Trinity. I didn’t even realize this was a growing movement until maybe 8 years ago. Have had a lot of discussions with them. It is a lot of recycling of old heresies under new names.

 

[BartholomewB]

From what you say here about Arianism and the Trinity, the term “New Testament Christian” evidently covers quite a wide range of mutually incompatible beliefs. My online contact that I’ve been quoting here holds a rather curious mixture of views on different subjects. Like me, he was originally an Anglican, and his understanding of the Incarnation and the Trinity remains fully orthodox. Where we disagree is primarily on the question of church polity, no ordained clergy, etc., but he is also a Christian Zionist, believing that Israeli independence in 1948 was the starting point of a process foretold in Revelation. This is something we don’t quarrel about, however. Since we are both strongly supportive of Israel, we invariably take the same side in political arguments about the Middle East, and it doesn’t matter to me that his reasons for supporting Israel are not the same as my reasons.

 

[OddBird]

I’m not sure who coined the term.

I like Hauerwas very much, and I think (from memory) he rather uses the terms “Constantinianism” or “Constantinian ethics”, which aren’t exactly the same.

I have seen it defined as “What happens to the church when worldly power is used to accomplish what God has given his people to do without such power.”

Yes, roughly. Hauerwas is a pacifist, and he affirms that collusion with power inevitably leads to compromising with what should be at the center at the Christian faith – a common effort to lead a Christ-like life, including being disarmed in face of violence and refusing to use coercion against opponents or evildoers.

He sees the Church has a prophetic people, a people whose task is showing by its life that another world that our own is possible, that we are called to a Kingdom whose logic is not the world’s logic – to him, the doctrine of just war, for example, would be a way of giving a theological justification to something which fundamentally belongs to the logic of the world.

It’s not just an obvious production-line fabrication of the common anti-Catholic, Chick Tract kind.

As far as Hauerwas is concerned, certainly not. He’s not unsympathetic to Catholicism, quite on the contrary – he considered converting himself when he taught at Notre-Dame, before being discouraged by a priest friend, and he’s responsible for bringing quite a few Protestants, myself included, back to the Church (even though, I’ll admit, I’m “hauerwasian” enough that the only point of Church teaching I really struggle with is, precisely, the possibility of just war).

An interesting Hauerwas article about American Catholicism: The Importance of Being Catholic: A Protestant View by Stanley Hauerwas | Articles | First Things

 

[BartholomewB]

Thank you, @OddBird! I have never read anything by Hauerwas, so I’ll start right here, with his article in First Things.

 

[OddBird]

If you should be interested to read more, the best place to begin, IMO, is his Peaceable Kingdom which gives a good introduction to his thought.