If Constantinianism is bad...

[RamistThomist]

I'm currently reading R. A. Markus's Saeculum: History and Society in the Theology of St. Augustine. Part of it deals with the church-world relation. More Donatist strains rejected the Constantinian settlement as compromising et al. So, if Constantinianism is bad, and if you were a believer back then, would you have joined a Constantinian church or a counter-church? If the latter, that would have meant joining a church that opposed Augustine, the Cappadocians, John Chrysostom, etc.

*I realize that emperors like Julian the Apostate and Constantius caused Athanasius and Gregory a lot of grief. But they died and the church reverted to status quo ante.

 

[Justified]

Constantinianism aside, I would have joined the Constantinian church simply because it was the true, catholic, and apostolic Church, while the Donatists were schismatics. I consider myself a firm believer in establishmentarianism, though not all forms of such are desirable, e.g., erastianism.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The question is too reductionist... for me, anyway. I have too much awareness of how "situated" I am, of how my loyalties are a complex (and changing) web of identities which are a providential product of time and space under divine government and persuasion. Is the *kind* of importance of the question in today's environment the same kind of importance the question had in a 4-5th century environment? How would the person I am now, in my own environment, possessing basically the same knowledge and attitudes--how would that person respond if dropped into an alien condition from the past?

We live in the fractured world of western Christendom. It is a situation we were born into, and we've adjusted. The Donatist controversy was one of the earliest intra-orthodox major church crises. These were disputants who essentially agreed about theology in the core; so a related question is: how central is the doctrine of an undivided church? In that era, the Donatist schism was a terrific scandal, creating two "denominations" of orthodox Christians. Other sects were viewed as non-Christians, for denying various creedal tenets (or at least their sanctioned expression).

I think (today) it was unconscionable for Augustin to approve and promote moving against the Donatists with force. I think it is fundamentally at odds with his wise observation that the State is a gang-of-criminals, writ large. I comprehend something of his mind, as to how he arrived at so contradictory a solution to the schism. He chose what looked to him like the lesser of two evils. Meanwhile, I sympathize after a fashion with the "staunch" Donatists, who were (in some sense) trying to call the one church to maintain its older, less-compromising policies. Was it worth "splitting" the church? I wasn't alive then...

Would I have been a Patriot or a Tory in 1776? Would I have joined the OPC or a mainline Presbyterian church in 1938? Would I have held my nose and voted for... ?

Long ago, I would have proudly announced my anachronistic allegiance to the freedom-fighters of the War of Independence, and to the doctrinal stalwarts (and "schismatics") of the OPC. Now, I am far more cautious, and self-doubting about my innate ability to "make the choice I would be proud of."

 

[ZackF]

The question is too reductionist... for me, anyway. I have too much awareness of how "situated" I am, of how my loyalties are a complex (and changing) web of identities which are a providential product of time and space under divine government and persuasion. Is the *kind* of importance of the question in today's environment the same kind of importance the question had in a 4-5th century environment? How would the person I am now, in my own environment, possessing basically the same knowledge and attitudes--how would that person respond if dropped into an alien condition from the past?

We live in the fractured world of western Christendom. It is a situation we were born into, and we've adjusted. The Donatist controversy was one of the earliest intra-orthodox major church crises. These were disputants who essentially agreed about theology in the core; so a related question is: how central is the doctrine of an undivided church? In that era, the Donatist schism was a terrific scandal, creating two "denominations" of orthodox Christians. Other sects were viewed as non-Christians, for denying various creedal tenets (or at least their sanctioned expression).

I think (today) it was unconscionable for Augustin to approve and promote moving against the Donatists with force. I think it is fundamentally at odds with his wise observation that the State is a gang-of-criminals, writ large. I comprehend something of his mind, as to how he arrived at so contradictory a solution to the schism. He chose what looked to him like the lesser of two evils. Meanwhile, I sympathize after a fashion with the "staunch" Donatists, who were (in some sense) trying to call the one church to maintain its older, less-compromising policies. Was it worth "splitting" the church? I wasn't alive then...

Would I have been a Patriot or a Tory in 1776? Would I have joined the OPC or a mainline Presbyterian church in 1938? Would I have held my nose and voted for... ?

Long ago, I would have proudly announced my anachronistic allegiance to the freedom-fighters of the War of Independence, and to the doctrinal stalwarts (and "schismatics") of the OPC. Now, I am far more cautious, and self-doubting about my innate ability to "make the choice I would be proud of."

Excellent thoughts. I read this before evening service tonight and thought, "he's on to something." I now know what it was. It's far to easy for us sometimes to take sides. As I get older I try harder not judge men of the past to harshly. Your post reminded me of liberals who recklessly comb through history imagining themselves on the right side of every cause. For the record I am not saying that's what Jacob is doing.

 

[MW]

It is difficult to see how society could have overcome Romanitas without it. Then there is Christendom, out of which springs the reformation and the reformed tradition. Without reformed values I doubt we would have had the wars of religion and constitutional political resistance theories, which in turn place importance on the civil liberty of the individual and the right of private judgment. Then no one would have questioned the idea of punishing those who threatened Romanitas.

Hindsight is wonderful, but to know the future is to change the future.

 

[RamistThomist]

The question is too reductionist... for me, anyway. I have too much awareness of how "situated" I am, of how my loyalties are a complex (and changing) web of identities which are a providential product of time and space under divine government and persuasion. Is the *kind* of importance of the question in today's environment the same kind of importance the question had in a 4-5th century environment? How would the person I am now, in my own environment, possessing basically the same knowledge and attitudes--how would that person respond if dropped into an alien condition from the past?

We live in the fractured world of western Christendom. It is a situation we were born into, and we've adjusted. The Donatist controversy was one of the earliest intra-orthodox major church crises. These were disputants who essentially agreed about theology in the core; so a related question is: how central is the doctrine of an undivided church? In that era, the Donatist schism was a terrific scandal, creating two "denominations" of orthodox Christians. Other sects were viewed as non-Christians, for denying various creedal tenets (or at least their sanctioned expression).

I think (today) it was unconscionable for Augustin to approve and promote moving against the Donatists with force. I think it is fundamentally at odds with his wise observation that the State is a gang-of-criminals, writ large. I comprehend something of his mind, as to how he arrived at so contradictory a solution to the schism. He chose what looked to him like the lesser of two evils. Meanwhile, I sympathize after a fashion with the "staunch" Donatists, who were (in some sense) trying to call the one church to maintain its older, less-compromising policies. Was it worth "splitting" the church? I wasn't alive then...

Would I have been a Patriot or a Tory in 1776? Would I have joined the OPC or a mainline Presbyterian church in 1938? Would I have held my nose and voted for... ?

Long ago, I would have proudly announced my anachronistic allegiance to the freedom-fighters of the War of Independence, and to the doctrinal stalwarts (and "schismatics") of the OPC. Now, I am far more cautious, and self-doubting about my innate ability to "make the choice I would be proud of."

Excellent thoughts. I read this before evening service tonight and thought, "he's on to something." I now know what it was. It's far to easy for us sometimes to take sides. As I get older I try harder not judge men of the past to harshly. Your post reminded me of liberals who recklessly comb through history imagining themselves on the right side of every cause. For the record I am not saying that's what Jacob is doing.

I am asking a hypothetical question which answer sheds light on modern ethical issues.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I am asking a hypothetical question which answer sheds light on modern ethical issues.

I understand. I just find myself unable to respond intelligently.

I think the modern ethical issue is immensely more complex than it is often made out to be. Our simplifications of the issues are sometimes helpful for us, because we can rest upon the relative safety of a certain set of unquestioned presuppositions. Tapping into those presuppositions is usually the way we get someone else to voluntarily change their minds about subjects including ethical issues. I know that's how my mind has changed before.

Therefore, I further assume the ancient ethical issue was similarly fraught with complexity. "Joining a church," an ancient denomination (so to speak), is already importing categories that were foreign to that situation's consciousness. Not being a man of that time, I have no idea how I might have worked through the complexity, or what unexamined presuppositions I would have been relying on.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Two excellent posts, Bruce. I couldn't have articulated it better. The more I study even American Church history and see the cultural and political forces at play, the more I realize how I have no idea how I might have thought/acted at the time.

I know this is leaving the immediate context of the question but I want to use an example that's got me thinking. Sean Lucas has just written an excellent book (For a Continuing Church). It not only traces the PCUS' slide into apostasy but also the cultural/political/religious ideas that shaped the conservative reaction and how racial segregation was tied up together with so many other issues.

Just sticking with the theological issues, I increasingly realize that the reason why heterodoxy takes root and thrives owes quite a bit to people not wanting to be impolite. There were popular men promoting evolution and denials of Scriptural inerrancy but they were popular preachers or seminary professors. The concerns raised against them were met with the typical: "This man has already been examined and he says his views haven't changed and why are you using such impious tactics."

I really don't think human nature has changed that much since the Christian Church dealt with the Donatist controversy. It's not like everyone was an Augustine. People fell along their lines of affection and the theological issues were mostly over their head. They either forgot or were never interested in the fine points of theology or may never have had a chance to be trained in them. If I was a peasant farmer then I'd just keep attending the Church I once attended. If I was an educated aristocrat then I'd probably have been swayed by whatever simplistic headline enabled me to think I was with the good guys and the other side was with the bad guys.

I know you're looking for more on this Jacob. Not trying to scuttle the thread but I just can't get out of the air I breathe sufficiently to imagine myself breathing totally different air.

 

[RamistThomist]

I'll answer my own questions, as a starter. I believe Constantinianism was a limited good. I would have stayed in the "established" church. Joining a Donatist group, for example, would mean among other things that I join a church that said Gregory of Nazianzus and John Chrysostom are in league with Antichrist. Kind of a hard pill to swallow.

 

[MW]

I'll answer my own questions, as a starter. I believe Constantinianism was a limited good. I would have stayed in the "established" church. Joining a Donatist group, for example, would mean among other things that I join a church that said Gregory of Nazianzus and John Chrysostom are in league with Antichrist. Kind of a hard pill to swallow.

Fair enough. Throw the doctrine of justification sole fide in there and it may be that you become the leader of a new group maintaining the doctrine on which the church stands or falls. Historical contingency is impossible to navigate. By bringing our present values into the past we change the past, which means we change the present from which we view the past.

 

[Justified]

I'll answer my own questions, as a starter. I believe Constantinianism was a limited good. I would have stayed in the "established" church. Joining a Donatist group, for example, would mean among other things that I join a church that said Gregory of Nazianzus and John Chrysostom are in league with Antichrist. Kind of a hard pill to swallow.

Fair enough. Throw the doctrine of justification sole fide in there and it may be that you become the leader of a new group maintaining the doctrine on which the church stands or falls. Historical contingency is impossible to navigate. By bringing our present values into the past we change the past, which means we change the present from which we view the past.

In Jacob's defense, the doctrine of sola fide was not a historical contingency the church was particularly concerned with, whether right or wrong.

While agreeing to a large degree of what Bruce said, I think we can at least say, given what we know in hindsight, what we would do. That may be the best we can do, but it's better than nothing.

 

[MW]

In Jacob's defense, the doctrine of sola fide was not a historical contingency the church was particularly concerned with, whether right or wrong.

Neither was the idea of punishing those who disturbed the Romanitas.

 

[RamistThomist]

I'll answer my own questions, as a starter. I believe Constantinianism was a limited good. I would have stayed in the "established" church. Joining a Donatist group, for example, would mean among other things that I join a church that said Gregory of Nazianzus and John Chrysostom are in league with Antichrist. Kind of a hard pill to swallow.

Fair enough. Throw the doctrine of justification sole fide in there and it may be that you become the leader of a new group maintaining the doctrine on which the church stands or falls. Historical contingency is impossible to navigate. By bringing our present values into the past we change the past, which means we change the present from which we view the past.

I wasn't intending on becoming a leader of a new group (unless there is some historical document showing that the Donatists believed in sola fide). In fact, I am not sure where that line leads anyway.

 

[MW]

In fact, I am not sure where that line leads anyway.

The point is, you can't really take into account all the dynamics of your contextual choices within all the dynamics of their contextual situation. You may have come up with something entirely different given what you know and they didn't.