Constantine’s Conversion: Authentic or an Illusion? Part II
Your opinion is important to us, please comment on this article.
by Michael Hall
Read part I
Christianity united Rome in a new nationalism. Constantine observed, during the persecution headed by Diocletian, the resilient nature of the Christian religion to stay unified. The loyalty of contemporary religious worshippers vanished when confronted with such a situation. He believed that if Christian worshippers stayed united through the horrors of the persecution, they would have no problem uniting behind a Christian government in a time of war. Constantine realized that the unifying nature of Christianity would keep the Roman Empire together (Dörries 111). The new state religion could take the place of the non-existent Roman nationalism. All citizens, regardless of their cultures, would unite behind the Lord’s nation. Although it may prove easy to rebel against an Emperor, it is not so easy to rebel against a god.
The Empire not only benefited from the unifying nature of Christianity, but also from the strong internal structure of the Christian hierarchy.
Constantine wanted to have complete control over the new state religion. Controlling the Empire through the normal chain of government had grown obsolete. Citizens knew that Emperor’s were not divine. They lived in an era in which power was constantly changing hands. So control by overt means was becoming a thing of the past. But if he could control a religious system which the populace believed to be infallible, well, his position of power would go unchallenged. But the illusion had to be maintained. By giving the Christian elite more freedom and implementing social services, Constantine was able to control the people more covertly (Koester 1067). He made the Christian hierarchy dependent on him. Also, with his growing familiarity with the internal workings of Christianity, Constantine was able to consolidate control over the church by assuming several self-appointed positions (Freeman, “Emperor’s” par. 2). So through his increased knowledge of the Christian faith, Constantine was able to manipulate it to his own ends. Constantine needed Christianity as a means of control, and Christianity needed Constantine for dominance and survival. It was a mutually beneficial relationship. In exchange for the religious freedom they had so long desired, church leaders saw no reason not to give their Emperor titles that implied his divine right to the position.
So by turning Christianity into the state religion, Constantine was able to consolidate control over the entire Empire through the medium of the church. And by becoming a Christian government, the Army now had a cause to fight for.
Christianity became the new tool to maintain troop loyalty. Constantine experimented with a new idea: to use religion to inspire and unite an Army, regardless of the distance. Of course he could have tried Paganism, but this would be no great surprise to the troops as his predecessors had already attempted this many times in the past to no avail. Instead, he used religious propaganda from a new religion: Christianity. “The army became officially Christian: all soldiers had to recite a prayer ‘to the one God’ every Sunday” (Koester 1068). By creating an army with a requirement to be Christian, Constantine lessened the possibility for dissent among the ranks. The once disgruntled troops from the frontier now became self-motivated crusaders for the state. The emperor became their leader, not only politically and militarily, but also spiritually. As the troops understood it, their Emperor had been granted the divine right to rule by God. Regardless of their cultural backgrounds, these people were united together under a new nationalism. And Constantine’s numerous victories only increased the mood among the ranks.
There was, however, one downside of fusing the Christian religion with the state. If Christianity were to fall, then Rome would fall as well. And Constantine would not let that happen.
The stability of the Roman Empire was directly related to the stability of Christianity. Christian unity was of the utmost importance to Constantine (Dörries 135). Order had to be maintained within the religious structure to ensure the stability of the state. But shortly after becoming the emperor of the Roman Empire, Constantine noticed that his Christian church was not as united as he first thought (Freeman, “Emperor’s” par. 9). There were splinter groups within the church, such as the Arians and the Donatists, that threatened the foundation of the Christian order. If left unchecked, these groups could divide Christianity into several distinct segments. If this happened, Christianity would no longer be an effective system of control, and everything that Constantine accomplished would disappear.
To avoid a break up of Christianity, and the Empire, Constantine was determined to settle the dispute between the various sects, and bring the conflict to an end.
At the Council of Nicaea, Constantine tried to unite the feuding branches of Christianity. “The determination of Constantine to resolve the issue, his dominating presence, and the growing dependency of the Church on him for patronage combined to give him an overwhelming position” (Freeman, “Emperor’s” par. 12). So the council was not really a council at all; it was a dictatorship. The members of the council were forced to comply with Constantine’s demands. The supposed power the members had was just an illusion so the citizens would believe the balance of power was being maintained. The populace was not to know that it was truly an absolutist dictatorship. So when Constantine entered the Council, he already knew what the end result would be. It would be his way. “According to Eusebius of Caesarea, the word homoousios was inserted in the Nicene Creed solely by the personal order of Constantine” (Beatrice 243). To be introduced by Constantine himself, the term must have had some significance. It turns out that homoousios is a word used to “express the divine consubstantiality of the Son with the Father” (Beatrice 243). Basically, the term implies that God and Jesus are made from the same substance, but are two independent beings—not one and the same. But why would this be of such importance to the Emperor?
So Constantine called the Council of Nicaea so it would appear that the members of the Christian hierarchy would come to a consensus. True, they did come to a consensus, but it was a forced consensus. But what was the significance of the word homoousios?
The insertion of homoousios facilitated Constantine’s control of the Empire and created a loophole for Paganism. Constantine, who happened to be very knowledgeable in Egyptian and Greek mythology, drew on his knowledge of the ancients when he introduced the word homoousios at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE (Beatrice 243-72). The choice to include this word in the Nicene Creed goes directly against the teachings of the Christian faith in regards to the concept of the trinity. Instead of having God and Jesus one and the same, the term implies that they are individual entities, both of the same substance, and are therefore equal. Basically, this does away with the concept of monotheism, and introduces the possibility of interpretation for polytheistic views. Constantine surely realized that the introduction of the term homoousios “provided a more effective theological backing for an autocratic political order than one whose powers were divided between God and Jesus as a lesser divine figure” (Freeman, “Emperor’s” par. 12). By having Jesus separate and distinct from God, but still being on the same level, he could use the religion more to his advantage. Due to the inclusion of this word, there was nothing to stop Constantine from placing himself in a position equal to that of God and Christ. So how is this different from the Pagan religions of the past? There is no difference. Christianity was becoming a reformed version of Paganism.
The events at Nicaea seem very odd for a Christian Emperor. But was he Christian? Moreover, was Rome Christian? Did the conversion ever take place?
The “Christian” conversion of Rome and Constantine might have been an illusion. In the article, “Ecstasy in Late Imperial Rome: Pagan Religions and Christianity During the 4th Century A.D.” found in History Today, Dirk Bennett tells us that the pro-Christian attitude we believe Rome had after the conversion of Constantine apparently was not the view that was held by many citizens of the period (pars. 2-3). The new “Christian” citizens of the Empire continued to practice Paganism, even after the conversion. This is not a case of regressing to the old ways. The point is that they never progressed in the first place. Many of the pagan games, rituals, and holidays survived the Christian conversion (Bennett pars. 6-9). If they were Christian, why would they take part in all of these Pagan activities? It is because they were not Christians, but Pagan worshippers under a different name. Also, Charles Freeman, in his book Egypt, Greece, and Rome: Civilizations of the Ancient Mediterranean, states that “Constantine was not baptized until shortly before he died” (499). Why, if he truly meant to convert to Christianity, did Constantine wait until his death to be baptized? His baptism surely would have given the stamp of approval on the Christian faith. But his lapse here clearly implies that Constantine was not serious about his new-found faith. If he were serious, he would have taken the proper steps to become a member of his new religious system. But his lack of motivation for becoming a Christian clearly shows that his intentions were not as genuine as previously viewed.
Constantine only wanted Christianity for its potential for control and its nationalistic qualities; he never intended to convert to Christianity. The Arch in Rome is a perfect example of the non-conversion of Constantine and the Roman Empire.
The Arch dedicated to Constantine in Rome shows how influential Paganism remained after the conversion. Following Constantine’s victory at Milvian Bride, the Senate authorized the construction of a commemorative arch (Freeman, Egypt 481). Such an act was not unusual, but what is interesting, however, is the manner in which it was constructed (see fig. 3). The post-conversion arch in Rome, dedicated to Constantine, is covered in Pagan, not Christian, symbolism (Freeman, “Emperor’s” par. 7). Now why would a Christian Emperor allow the construction of a Pagan monument in his honor? One could argue that it was intended as a means of connecting with the pagan majority. Possibly; but why would the Arch be left without any trace of Christian symbolism? After all, the victory was a Christian victory— wasn’t it?
So a Pagan monument was erected in honor of a Christian victory? No, it was a Pagan monument erected in honor of a Pagan victory under the disguise of Christianity. But exactly how far did Constantine’s Pagan tendencies go?
The Christian Emperor Constantine continued to practice Paganism throughout his life. Constantine’s subjects would often address him as God (MacMullen 35). Now Emperor worship was not uncommon in ancient times. There were whole faiths built around Emperors both living, and in the past. However, this Emperor was a religious reformer. He had experienced a conversion to
 Fig. 3. Picture of Arch dedicated to Constantine (Freeman, “Emperor’s” par. 6). |
a radically different faith in which there was only one god. So by being addressed as God, he was going directly against Christian doctrine. However, he fit right in with Paganism. In addition, there were protests when Constantine erected a statue of himself resembling the sun god (MacMullen 34). Now why would a Christian Emperor portray himself as a Pagan god? Once again, such an act clearly would be against Christian doctrine. The article “Constantine the Great” found at the New Advent website tells us that after the Council of Nicaea, Constantine dedicated the city of Constantinople with both Pagan and Christian symbolism (par. 11). Why would the Christian Emperor Constantine dedicate his new Christian capitol with pagan symbolism? Yes, there was Christian symbolism present, but Constantine wanted the populace to identify the Pagan symbolism with the new Christian religion. He never converted to the his new-found faith. Instead, he took a well-structured social group, known as Christianity, and merged it with Pagan doctrine. The result was “Reformed Paganism.”
Christianity became Paganism, just under a different name. But other than the social and nationalistic benefits, what was so appealing to Constantine about Christianity?
The similarities between Christianity and sun worship helped Constantine make his choice. “It appears that the new emperor favored a combination of Sol Invictus and the Christian God” (Koester 1066). Constantine believed that the Christian God and the Sun God were parallel entities. They were the same, they just had different names. Therefore, it was relatively easy for him to integrate his old Pagan views into the new religious system. Also, many Christian holidays have their roots in the Pagan past, such as Christmas which was originally the birthday of the sun god (Bennett par. 36). So Christmas was the birthday of the Sun God, and became the birthday of the Son of God. Similarities such as this would have only ensured Constantine of his choice. Even the names given to the Christian temples were synonymous with their Pagan counterparts (Freeman, “Emperor’s” par. 19). It is quite possible that Constantine believed that Christianity was sun worship, just in a different form.
So being motivated by his own political ambition, Constantine created an illusory conversion of the Roman Empire from Paganism to Christianity. His traditional Pagan religion was not structured as an effective means of control. It was not until he witnessed the Christian persecutions that he realized that Christianity was the ideal template. He found in Christianity all the attributes required to create his ideal state religion. Once he became Emperor, he continued to practice his Pagan religion while at the same time championing for the Christian cause. Constantine intended for Christianity to replace Paganism only in name, and not in spirit. The main core of Paganism was to remain. But it just needed a new appearance and an organized hierarchy. Due to the inadequacies of the traditional Pagan religion, Constantine, who was greatly influenced by his mentor Diocletian, used his supposed Christian conversion for the purpose of creating an artificial nationalism and social control structure for the Empire, during which time neither he, nor Rome, ever converted to the religion—but instead remained Pagan.
Works Cited
Beatrice, Pier Franco. “The Word ‘Homoousios’ from Hellenism to Christianity.”
Church History 71 (2002): 243-72. InfoTrac. Monroe County Community
College Lib. Monroe, MI. 31 Jan. 2005.
<http://web7.infotrac.galegroup.com>.
Bennett, Dirk. “Ecstasy in Late Imperial Rome: Pagan Religions and Christianity
During the 4th Century A.D.” History Today Oct. 1998: 36 pars. InfoTrac
Monroe County Community College Lib. Monroe, MI. 9 Apr. 2005. <http://web7.infotrac.galegroup.com>.
Brox, Norbert. A Concise History of the Early Church. New York: Continuum, 1995.
“Constantine the Great.” New Advent. 3 Nov. 2004: 18 pars. 20 Mar. 2005. <http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm>.
Dörries, Hermann. Constantine the Great. Trans. Roland H. Bainton. New York: Harper, 1972.
Freeman, Charles. Egypt, Greece, and Rome: Civilizations of the Ancient Mediterranean. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1996.
—. “The Emperor’s State of Grace.” History Today Jan. 2001: 22 pars. InfoTrac.
Monroe County Community College Lib. Monroe, MI. 9 Apr. 2005.
<http://web7.infotrac.galegroup.com>.
Hunt, E.D. “Constantine and Jerusalem.” The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 48
(1997): 27 pars. InfoTrac. Monroe County Community College Lib. Monroe,
MI. 31 Jan. 2005. <http://web7.infotrac.galegroup.com>.
Jones, A.H.M. Constantine and the Conversion of Europe. New York: Macmillian, 1949.
Koester, Helmut and Vasiliki Limberis. “Christianity.” Civilization of the Ancient Mediterranean: Greece and Rome. Eds. Michael Grant and Rachel Kitzinger.
Vol. 2. New York: Scribner’s, 1988. 1047-72.
MacMullen, Ramsay. Christianity and Paganism in the Fourth to Eighth Centuries.
New Haven: Yale UP, 1997.
Mattingly, Harold. Christianity in the Roman Empire. New York: Norton, 1967.
Parker, H.M.D. A History of the Roman World from A.D. 138 to 337. New York:
Macmillian, 1939.
“The Royal Army Chaplains’ Department.” Oremus. 9 Apr. 2005.
<http://www.oremus.org/labarum/mainabout.htm>.
Leave a reply