The consequences of Constantine

During his tenure as Roman emperor from 306 to 337, Constantine was responsible for two world-changing acts. First, he chose a location for a new capital city on the shores of the Bosphorus. The city carried his name for the next thousand years and more. Constantinople’s defensible position enabled it to withstand invasion from the huns, the muslim armies,the mongols and others. It was a centre of civilisation and stability. The city finally fell to the Ottoman Turks in 1453 and was renamed as Istanbul.

Bust_of_Constantine_I_from_York_YORYM_1998_23

Bust of Constantine found in York, northern England, the city where he was proclaimed Emperor in 306.

The second act had even more far-reaching consequences. He convened a gathering of christian bishops in the city of Nicaea in present-day Turkey in the year 325. The Council of Nicaea was tasked with finding a consensus view of christianity that would enable it to be adopted as the religion of the Roman Empire.

As one of the defining characteristics of christianity almost from the time of Jesus had been the argumentativeness of its followers, this promised to be as easy as herding cats. One area in which the christians had been united, however, was in their resistance to the Roman Empire with its propensity to deify its emperors. Christians were monotheistic. A Roman emperor could not be a god.

The council was a success in that it reached agreement. As with any successful conference, the delegates agreed a final wording to the conclusion of their discussions. It is still with us today and is known as the Nicene Creed.

Here is an English translation of the original version from that council:

“We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible.

“And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father the only-begotten; that is, of the essence of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made both in heaven and on earth; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man; he suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

“And in the Holy Ghost.

“But those who say: ‘There was a time when he was not;’ and ‘He was not before he was made;’ and ‘He was made out of nothing,’ or ‘He is of another substance’ or ‘essence,’ or ‘The Son of God is created,’ or ‘changeable,’ or ‘alterable’—they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church.”

To reach a final wording involved massive compromises. For the moment, I will mention two of them.

The first compromise was to do with the divinity of the emperor. In order for christianity to be acceptable in the Roman empire the bishops had to decree that Jesus was divine. Before that time, for many christians Jesus was a human being like the rest of us. (Being christians and therefore disputatious, there was the complication of the virgin birth. But that was open to many interpretations, all of which were explored, vociferously.)

So the bishops made Jesus into an emperor. In the following years churches had images of all-powerful christ on his throne. They called him Christ pantokrator (‘pantokrator’ means ‘omnipotent’ in Greek).

Mosaico_di_cristo_in_trono_tra_gli_apostoli_e_le_ss._prudenziana_e_prassede,_410_dc_ca._01

This image of Jesus enthroned is from the church of Santa Pudendenzia in Rome, year 410.

But for me the tragedy is in the final paragraph of the original Nicene Creed (which has been cut out of the modern versions). People who disagreed with the wording as pronounced by those bishops were condemned. They became heretics.

Apart from the contradiction of the cruelty that was perpetrated in the name of a religion which exhorted people to love one another, this undermines something fundamental that was fresh and new and which arrived with christianity. It seems to me that Jesus introduced a sense of morality, a sense of right and wrong – and the individual human responsibility to look for that in oneself and act accordingly. Of course it led to arguments, centuries of them. This moral sense was something so new that it was very difficult for our species to assimilate.

But the Roman Empire did not handle ambiguity well. It wanted an official depiction of reality, an official storyline. And so, with the Council of Nicaea, two incompatible words were joined ever afterwards: christian orthodoxy.

The Orthodox, Apostolic Roman Catholic church, with the backing of the empire, gradually became the dominant version of christianity over the following centuries. It only expressed a segment of the spectrum of early christianity, albeit a magnificent one.

Followers of non-orthodox versions of christianity had to be careful. Some followers of the church at Alexandria in Egypt hid their treasured, non-orthodox texts in some pots which they buried in the sand, probably around the year 370. The pots were uncovered at Nag Hammadi in 1945.

Apocalypse of Peter

Part of the Apocalypse of Peter, one of the apocryphal texts from the Nag Hammadi Library.

Was Constantine bowing to the inevitable when he adopted christianity as the religion of the empire? It was certainly on an upward trajectory. What if he had not? Would it still be here today? Would the empire have come to an end sooner if he hadn’t adopted christianity? I really don’t know.

Advertisements