Constantine's Lesson

It's often pointed out by secularists like myself that when government mixes with religion, the government's ability to perform its proper role is co-opted by the needs of faith. Certain things are outlawed that should not be based merely on the whims of a capricious textual deity. Certain people become second-class citizens because of their beliefs, or their lack of them. In short, government fails to provide the maximum amount of freedom for all of its citizens and it ceases to adequately represent its population.

That's a powerful argument for those inclined to liberty and secularism, but its one that falls on deaf ears when presented to fundamentalists of any stripe, because these are people who see the above situation as a good one. They make different assumptions about the nature of an ideal society than the rest of us. There is another argument, however, that I find is made far less often, but that I find far more powerful when dealing with those whom Richard Dawkins might call "dyed-in-the-wool faithheads." That is the argument that government, when mixed with religion, will almost inevitably corrupt it.

I see government entanglement in religion as going two ways, though it is obviously more complex than I can cover in a short blog post. Firstly, you have a government that is co-opted by religion to meet religion's ends. This is the case with modern Islamic theocracies, and would be the case in America if the Christian right had their say-so.

The other option is that the government co-opts religion for its own ends. This has happened numerous times throughout history and might just be one of the most defining characteristics of the Christian religion. Only a few centuries after its inception, it was co-opted by the Roman Empire and was never the same. Throughout European history we see a consistent pattern of corruption within the religion due to its mixture with the politics of the time.

Before Constantine, Christianity was a hedge religion, practiced by some small part of the population of the Roman Empire. Depending on who was heading Rome at the time, Christians were by turns outlawed, persecuted, scapegoated, or allowed to practice their religion in peace. For the first few centuries of the religion, there was no universally accepted canon of holy documents in use. What would eventually become the Bible was a loose aggregation of books from here and there, and the exact specifics were completely mutable from church to church and area to area. Overall, though, when they weren't being outlawed, persecuted, or scapegoated, Christians were free to practice their religion as they saw fit.

Then along came Emperor Constantine. Son of a devoutly Christian mother, he himself was a pagan worshipper of Sol Invictus, the Unconquered Sun, until the "vision" he had that told him he would conquer under the chi-roh. He put it on the shields of his military and won the battle. That's the grade-school version.

When you look more deeply at it, you find that while we are always told he put "The Christian chi-roh" on his army's shields, in actuality, the chi-roh was not identified with Christianity until Constantine put it to that use. It's unclear that it even existed at all. This is to say, it may not have meant at the time what it has come to mean today.

That is a minor and relatively unsupported quibble, however, and what is clear is that no matter the specificities of the symbology used, Constantine's army knew they were fighting for the Christian god now. It is here important to note that a significant portion of his army was made up of Christians. Given that people don't generally experience "divine visions," it is probably fair to say that his sudden "conversion" was a rather convenient morale booster for a tired and overworked military. The vision story is heavily steeped in myth, and comes down to us only from Christian sources, all of which are inherently biased.

Constantine, after the chi-roh at the Battle of Milvian Bridge, returned to Rome and declared Christianity to be legal. He became a patron of Christianity, but Constantine himself remained a worshipper of Sol Invictus and, while paying lip service to Christianity, often attended pagan ceremonies which were the direst of heresy to Christians. He did not officially convert until he was baptized while lying on his deathbed.

It is often thought that he made Christianity the official religion of the Empire, but he did not. He left that for the later Emperor Theodosius I. Constantine legalized it and patronized it with public monies. He built churches and gave back all the previously confiscated property of the various churches. Most importantly for this discussion, however, was his practice of elevating Christians. Though he himself remained a pagan, he used Christianity as a rallying point for his empire. He made Christians the new elites of society. Those that converted were given social and political perks, and it became hard for pagans to get ahead in society unless they publicly converted to Christianity.

What we see here is both the first major government entanglement with Christianity, and the first major government corruption of Christianity. Wealthy and powerful Romans converted in droves to get the new perks offered by giving lip service to the Emperor's new favorite religion. What had before been a pastoral religion followed only by those that honestly and devoutly believed it soon became a social and political fad and, in time, the honest Christians became outnumbered by converted pagans who didn't give a damn whatsoever about Jesus or his teachings but instead cared only for what power and wealth they could gain by conversion.

Constantine's effect on Christianity was cemented in writing, so to speak, at the Council of Nicea in 325. This was the committee that met to decide upon the "official" church canon. Documents were brought in from the whole of the Christian empire and pared down to the twenty-seven books that have come down the centuries to us. Many were left out for reasons that remain unclear but were most likely political in nature; "divine inspiration" was decided based on the needs and desires of the various representatives at the council. Sure sounds divinely inspired to me. Among those left out were the Gospel and Apocalypse of Peter, the Infancy and Childhood Gospels, the Gospel of Thomas, and the Gospel of Mary. The Book of Revelation was itself almost left out of the final product, pretty much because it is, to use technical terminology, batshit insane. Those at the council basically were not sure it wasn't simply the ravings of a madman. They ended up including it, however, despite their initial doubts. This demonstrates pretty well that it was neither obvious nor clear to those at the council what books were "divine" and which were not.

So, in the end, what did Constantine accomplish by legalizing Christianity? Well, he won a major battle, got ten percent of the population on his side when they had previously been on the outskirts of his empire, and by giving perks to Christians and converters, solidified his empire under a far less divisive religion than the various paganisms that went around at the time, all the while continuing to be a pagan himself. He did pretty well for himself, didn't he? Sounds like he had his cake and ate it, too.

Christianity, on the other hand, was irreparably scarred by his involvement. It went from a quiet, private faith populated by the truly faithful to a massive social phenomenon populated by the socially and politically expedient. Christian traditions were blended with pagan traditions to make it even more palatable to Rome's base. The Bible was essentially created by a group of politically-appointed councilmen with a vested interest in pleasing the Emperor, and it replaced the collections of documents used by the small, private churches at the time, forever altering how they ran their own faith. Political orthodoxy immediately overran the freedom with which the church had previously conducted themselves. All of this led eventually to the various hierarchies, structures, and arbitrary ecumenical rules of the Catholic church, many of which had little if anything to do with the bible itself much less the many books in use before 325. This, in turn, led to the first Great Schizm, the Protestant Reformation, and the modern state of a thousand fractured shards of Christianity all fighting it out between each other over the scraps of self-declared "eternal truth" to which each clings.

Sounds like Christianity got a pretty raw deal. However, without Constantine's endorsement, it is likely that the religion would have eventually faded from history. At the very best, it would not have nearly its current number of adherents. Christianity, in order to get onto the historical map and continue its existence, had to sell its own soul. How does that verse from Matthew go again?

What good will it be for a man if he gains the whole world, yet forfeits his soul? Or what can a man give in exchange for his soul? (Matthew 16:26)

An entire religion can gain recognition, adherents, and longevity. In exchange for its soul, Christianity gained influence and power.

The first government entanglement with Christianity, and the first example of government corruption of Christianity.

History continued in this vein for a dozen centuries. Politically-appointed popes with illegitimate children, multiple popes at once fighting it out for power, wars, schizms, orthodoxy issues, crusades. The pastoral religion of peace, in the space of a few highly-political centuries, became a militant faith of murder and butchery. The governments that were entangled with Christianity used the religion as a rallying point for land- and power-grabbing wars with Islam. Children were sent happily to their deaths, singing in joyous voices all the way. Governments corrupting religion, forever and irreparably.

Henry VIII broke away from the Pope to form the Church of England over a personal moral squabble: he wanted to marry and divorce and kill wife after wife and he wanted the wealth and property of the Catholic parishes in Britain. He used his force of government to make a new favored church in his own empire and again rewarded those that converted to his new "rape and pillage" faith. Later on, King James commissioned a retranslation of the Bible and gave us his own version, generally considered the poorest and most politically-motivated translation of the book that was once considered "holy." Nothing has ever been the same.

Let's move forward to modern times. There are still a few European countries that still have "official" state religions. Those countries are, almost to a one, some of the most secular and non-religious countries on the planet. Over time, the government has watered down the "official" faiths so much that they no longer have any power and are mere shades of their beginnings. They are hardly even recognizeable as Christianity and modern concerns have left them unenforced and unenforceable. Government entanglement has made them what they are today.

The very first government entanglement with Christianity immediately destroyed its base foundation and made it into a religion of poseurs, of politically-savvy social climbers and the dishonest wealthy elite. This pattern has continued for more than a millennium and a half. State entanglement with religion shows a consistent pattern throughout history of corruption of the goals and values of the religion with which it is involved.

But, you might say, that is often not the case in a number of militant Islamic dictatorships and theocracies in the Middle East. We cannot, however, see the internal state of the faith of the country. The governments there rule with an iron fist and an AK-47, and so of course it appears that the "faith" is being kept. It's the reverse version of Constantine's perks and incentives. Instead of positive reinforcement for following Christianity, those countries offer often deadly punishment for wavering from their intended vision of Islam. Neither way is conducive to an honest acceptance of the religion or a solid, united faith. One panders to the ambitious and the other threatens force against the heretical.

So those are your options, theocrats and dominionists, held up time and time again by centuries of history: police the faith with fire and blood, or watch it slowly erode into nothingness beneath your feet. Either way, your religion, once entangled with government, will never, ever be the same again. It will become populated by the dishonest, false converts desiring either social position or an end to persecution. It will find itself unable to hold to orthodoxy within the constantly-shifting currents of global politics. It will be co-opted by political opportunists and changed to fit agenda after agenda. It will find itself hated and resisted by those that do not wish to be put-upon with a faith that is not theirs. It will be forever and inevitably changed and corrupted, and after time you will no longer even recognize it. It will never, can never be as you envision it. This is the lesson we learn from Constantine I, from Theodosius, from Henry VIII, from King James, from the Church of England: relgion belongs in the private home, the private church or hall of worship, not the halls of government. That way, for both you and us, lies madness.

The blogswarm.