When Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity around 300AD he ended the persecution of Christians, built churches and made it the state religion.However, some believers refer this moment as the fall of the church, implying that it all went wrong from this point.
Constantine baptised his soldiers, making them march through a river. But he made them hold their sword hand out of the water, so that their fighting ability would not be compromised. He used the cross as a military embem. Whereas Jesus always emphasised peace and non-violence, Constantine used Christianity to back his military campaigns. This led to the formation of the ‘just war’ theory, the crusades and the inquisitions.
He strengthened the religious structures, constructing grand buildings and establishing the dominance of the clergy. All things that Jesus spoke against.
Before his conversion he followed the ‘sun god’ Apollo. He tried to fuse this belief with his new belief in Jesus to try and unite the Christians with the ‘pagans’. He moved the day of rest from the ‘Lord’s day’ to the day of the sun - Sunday. He fixed the date of Easter around the movement of the sun, and endorsed the celebration of Christmas on December 25th, a festival of the sun god.
Apollo was often depicted with rays of light from his head, which we think is where the idea of halos comes from.
Constantine called and chaired a council of the most important bishops to try and unite their ideas. One product of this is the Nicene creed, which is still used as a central declaration of what we should believe to this day. It was designed to emphasise how Jesus was eternal and involved in creation, countering the contemporary ideas of Arius who held that Jesus was created by God.
However, the creed says nothing of Jesus life or teaching; it jumps straight from his birth to his death. Some say that Constantine deliberately tried to distort Christianity, de-emphasising the challenging parts of Jesus’ message that didn’t fit in well with his empire. To quote Rev Giles Fraser:
Nicene Christianity is the religion of Christmas and Easter, the celebration of a Jesus who is either too young or too much in agony to shock us with his revolutionary rhetoric. The adult Christ who calls his followers to renounce wealth, power and violence is passed over in favor of the gurgling baby and the screaming victim. As such, Nicene Christianity is easily conscripted into a religion of convenience, with believers worshipping a gagged and glorified savior who has nothing to say about how we use our money or whether or not we go to war. And from Constantine onwards, the radical Christ worshipped by the early church would be pushed to the margins of Christian history to be replaced with the infinitely more accommodating religion of the baby and the cross.
(full article here)
We had a go at writing our own additions to the Nicene creed to try and restore the balance. We bashed these out very quickly, so they may not be as polished as they might be, but here is what we came up with...
He lived a life in which he was tested in all ways, as we are, though he sinned not. In everything he chose rather to glorify God the Father in order to bring others to salvation.
He called people to follow him and spread the kingdom of God. He welcomed and healed all outcasts but criticised those who abused religious power.
He told people not to store up treasure on Earth.
Throughout his life he grew in grace and truth, and in favour with God and man.
He spoke of the love of the Father, love of each other, forgiveness, peace and the kingdom of God. He was pure and blameless in all he did.
Some of us thought that the creed was fine as it is, that we can find out about Jesus’ life from other ways including sermons. Others didn’t like the idea of summarising Jesus in a written creed at all.
Incidentally, in my research I came across this by theologian Jurgen Moltmann, who came up with this addition to the creed:
Baptized by John the Baptizer,
filled with the Holy Spirit to preach the Rule of God to the poor,
to heal the sick,
to receive those who have been cast out,
to revive Israel for the salvation of the nations,
and to have mercy upon all people.
So, do we need saving from the legacy of the Constantinian fall?
8 comments:
Sounds wonderfully fascinating; as someone who mixes with a lot of people who see Christianity (even before Constantine) as a re-hash of older Pagan beliefs, resurrection cults (ie Mithras) et al, it's good to see where *some* of this comes from. IIRC, Constantine also introduced robes to services having borrowed it from Paganism.
New creed? Yes / No.
The creed has never been unpacked or explained in a service in 20 years of going to church services.
What does it mean to your average punter other than the next thing to hurriedly repeat from memory so you can get to tea & biscuits and talking with people at the end of church as quickly as possible?
On the the other hand, a new creed would dumb down. "I believe in God" could become "I believe". Neither of which give any definition!
Keep what we have, educate, teach, inform, stimulate from it, and let people know why we have the creed. Not for doctrinal control, but for identity and direction, IMO.
Thanks for this Andy. Thought provoking.
Been thinking about this session so much since Thursday, particularly how much of our church 'traditions' actually have their origins with Constantine and not with what Jesus had originally intended. Had expected our Easter service yesterday to be such a contemplative joyful experience, but it instead left me feeling uncomfortable and extremely awkward.... on many occasions I felt the service was in fact more 'pagan' than Christian!!! Why do we have an altar? Why did the communion service appear so 'cannibalistic'? Why was there so much bowing and 'crossing' all the time? Why all the candles and fancy robes? Why a priest? My
head feels all of a muddle!!! Yikes!!
Confused,
JO =)
Oh, sorry - didn't mean to cause confusion or ruin Easter for anyone!
Talking of Easter, thought I'd share this extract from Rob Bell's excellent book Velvet Elvis. I based my Easter Sunday sermon around this.
It is such a letdown to raise from the dead and have your friends not recognise you.
The writer John tells us that Mary saw Jesus after his resurrection but did not realise it was Jesus. Jesus asked her, “Woman, why are you crying? Who is it you are looking for?”
“Thinking he was the gardener, she said...”
I love that line “thinking he was the gardener”. It is so loaded. Jewish writers like John did things like this all the time in their writings. They record what seem to be random details, yet in these details we find all sorts of hidden meanings in a text. One is called the principle of first mention. Whenever you come across a significant word in a passage, find out where this word first appears in the Bible. The writer wants you to see a connection. Where is the first mention of a garden in the Bible? Genesis 2, the story of god placing the first people in a... garden. And what happens to this garden and these people? They choose to live outside of how God made them to live, and they lose their place in the garden. Death enters the picture and paradise is lost.
John tells us that Jesus was buried in a garden tomb. And Jesus is mistaken for a gardener. Something else is going on here. John wants us to see a connection between the garden of Eden and Jesus rising from the dead in a garden. There is a new Adam on the scene, and he is reversing the curse of death by conquering it. As one writer put it, “It was impossible for death to keep its hold on him.” And he’s doing it in a garden. He’s reclaiming creation. He’s entering into it and restoring it and renewing God’s plans for the world.
Jesus is God’s way of refusing to give up on his dream for the world.
That's a great quote, Andy. I'd never seen the significance of it being *the garden* before. Good stuff.
Jo - sounds like Christchurch was higher than St Andrews yesterday. We had to be at the latter due to a serving commitment, but the service was very merry and light.
Once we're into May, I really will entreaty folk for getting a different service / meeting on the go at Christchurch; I remain utterly convinced its current offerings if they remain the only services, and although meaningful to (most)current worshippers, will take the church building and the congregation to an end within a few years.
Don't worry, Andy, the session didn't leave me confused just 'questioning'... and therefore I thoroughly enjoyed it...lol! Just very aware that I seem to go along with things so passively sometimes, without questioning their validity or appropriateness... really dangerous I know, so its good to be reminded to think, look back at the Bible and prayerfully consider things.
Yes, Tim, Christchurch was very 'high up the candlestick' yesterday. Problem was I took all my kids along and they couldn't really understand or relate to it at all... didn't know hardly any of the hymns and at one point Sam was nearly in hysterics!!! To be honest, I don't think that this 'style' of service really is what most of the congregation want... just not sure they'd cope with anything more 'alternative' either! Hmm!
Am I on my own in desperately wanting to have fellowship with those who love the Lord Jesus?... something simple and informal really, chance to grapple with the realities of living in a Christ-like way, to pray and encourage one another etc.... without all the 'religeous' paraphenalia and expense!!!! Think that's why I love SofaChurch so much!! Thank you!!!
Jo =)
not sure they'd cope with anything more 'alternative' either! Hmm!
Well, let's hope we've a chance to find out...
Something I have been thinking about recently, partly based on people's comments in the blog recently (like yours above, Jo!)... is SofaChurch a church, if not in what ways is it/isn't it, and should it be a church? I think we'll do an evening to discuss it - April 17th is free. I've started a new post so get thinking and commenting in advance!
Post a Comment