Why aren't Mennonites Constantinian?

[Ernie]

5. Constantine joined church and state, then used force to punish those who would not toe the line of his Christian government.
6. Constantine ordered the death penalty for those he considered heretics, people who defied his version of church.

Can you document this? On a quick read of several sources, it looks like Constantine did not suppress paganism or forcibly convert pagans to Christianity. Are you thinking of Charlemagne?

Emperial Edict Against the Donatists
In 317 Constantine issued a severe edict against the Donatists: the death penalty would be imposed on anyone who disturbs the peace. A later decree orders the confiscation of Donatist churches. Donatus refused to surrender church properties in Carthage into the hands of Caecilian. Caecilian then appealed to the local Roman authorities.

There is a lack of documentary evidence about what happens next, but it appears that extremists in the Donatist camps took to the streets in violent protests. On March 12, 317 armed forces move in to take Donatist church buildings by force; attacks were made on churches with Donatists defending them. Donatist writings claimed many were killed. While there are no other records, there have been other pieces of evidence that lend some credibility to these reports.
It should also be pointed out that the violence only happened in Carthage - in the surrounding regions Donatist bishops were allowed to keep their buildings and their positions. (Frend, pp.159-160)

https://www.churchhistory101.com/feedba ... atists.php

[MaxPC]

I will list what I think are some undisputed facts.

1. Constantine's mother was a Christian according to Eusebius.
2. There is no record of Constantine mentioning anything about the sign he saw on the sun until ten years after his historic victory against Maxentius. Following the victory, there is no record that Constantine gave God or Jesus any credit for the victory until 10 years later.
3. The sign he had his soldiers paint on their shields was the chi-rho symbol, not a cross. The chi-rho symbol was a pagan good luck symbol.
4.Constantine the Great made Christianity popular.
5. Constantine joined church and state, then used force to punish those who would not toe the line of his Christian government.
6. Constantine ordered the death penalty for those he considered heretics, people who defied his version of church.
7. Constantine paved the way for the rise of a religious Roman government that would prove to be horrific for many years.
8. The result was a unification of church and state—a move that would be the catalyst to the egregious abuses that took place over the next 1,500 years during what has come to be known as the Dark Ages.

If anyone has evidence to dispute these, feel free to bring it forward. When I say evidence, I am not talking about supposition.

8. Is a little tendentious. The term “Dark Ages” is passeè. It also refers, or used to refer, to the period after the Fall of Rome which comes well after the “Constantinian Conversion of the Empire”.

Agreed. Another way less inflammatory way of framing this is that the Church during the medieval period was the primary steward of the remnants of Roman culture and thought -- they preserved many of the manuscripts (along with the Moorish Arabs) and Greco-Roman ideals that helped spark the Renaissance.

Also, I want to point out that the part of the Roman Empire that collapsed was the Western part. The Eastern part survived the fall of Rome and became the Byzantine Empire centered around Constantinople. It survived for almost another 1000 years until the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks in 1453.

Got it in one.
The church being made up of men who were dealing with society’s infrastructural collapse post-empire, recycled those empirical bits that created stability for society. Post empire was a time of chaos with increased marauding invaders and increased lawlessness. As with any chaotic situation, one takes what one knows and try to calm the chaos. Personally I refer to it as civilisation’s entropic tendencies.

Interestingly, the monastic communities with their libraries became havens in preserving the knowledge of ancient maths, medicine and literature in the post-empire era. Human history is replete with self-destruction, revival and rebuilding, not unlike Haiti’s cycle of history.

[Ernie]

8. The result was a unification of church and state—a move that would be the catalyst to the egregious abuses that took place over the next 1,500 years during what has come to be known as the Dark Ages.

I think unification of church and state was the norm well before Constantine, throughout the Ancient Near East, and perhaps throughout most of history.

Are you talking about unification of the Christian church and state, or any sort of religion/church?

I don't think there was a unification of the Christian church and state in Europe before Constantine. Perhaps there was some in the Near East? If so, I'd like to read about it.

[Bootstrap]

https://www.churchhistory101.com/feedba ... atists.php

I think I agree with the conclusion of that article:

I never said that Constantine did not use force. But the force was to tell his governor in N.Africa (Numidia, I think) to quell any violence. N.Africa had a history of violence and Constantine, prior to knowing about the Donatist issue, had signaled earlier that he wanted peace and quiet.

Donatists were commanded to get out of the churches they had taken (this is important - Donatus had traveled around the region recruiting bishops to follow him. This would include whatever buildings they had) and when they refused and some of their extremists took to the streets threatening (and perhaps beating people), Roman soldiers were sent in as a police force. When the Donatists "defended" their churches, deadly force followed.

Again, this is NOT "leading an army" into battle. This is calling in Roman troops on a police action. Kind of like the governor of California calling in the National Guard during the Rodney King riots.

It is also important to know that the violence and the deadly force only happened in Carthage. Donatists in other cities/towns did not resist and were left alone. If Constantine had just wanted to kill Christians he would have sent troops to ALL Donatist churches and rooted them out. Constantine quickly regretted the police action and never did anything like this again. In fact, he reversed his action and granted the Donatists freedom with their churches.

The point is the way Gonzalez and others present it puts Constantine in an unfair light. Now if you want to say things like this against Julian a bit later...that is more accurate. But to give the few lines you used, or what Gonzalez reported, does not even mention the violence and obstinence of the Donatists. It is all about how the data is presented.

[Bootstrap]

8. The result was a unification of church and state—a move that would be the catalyst to the egregious abuses that took place over the next 1,500 years during what has come to be known as the Dark Ages.

I think unification of church and state was the norm well before Constantine, throughout the Ancient Near East, and perhaps throughout most of history.

Are you talking about unification of the Christian church and state, or any sort of religion/church?

I don't think there was a unification of the Christian church and state in Europe before Constantine. Perhaps there was some in the Near East? If so, I'd like to read about it.

OK, I now understand. I think this basically amounted to reverting to the most common relationship between religion and state - the early church was not enmeshed with government like most religions were.

[NedFlanders]

Mennonites believe in the gospel that Jesus preach - the gospel of the Kingdom of God. They aren’t lost in a salvation or a social justice gospel. Being citizens of the heavenly country Mennonites don’t join in an unequal yoke with kingdoms of this world and so have a drastically different view than Constantine and nearly all Protestants. I think it is that simple.

[MaxPC]

Mennonites believe in the gospel that Jesus preach - the gospel of the Kingdom of God. They aren’t lost in a salvation or a social justice gospel. Being citizens of the heavenly country Mennonites don’t join in an unequal yoke with kingdoms of this world and so have a drastically different view than Constantine and nearly all Protestants. I think it is that simple.

Ned, I certainly see the benefit of this view in promoting maturation in the spiritual walk. It definitely clears out the distractions, particularly in an election year. Was this view present in Anabaptism since the beginning or did it evolve into this perspective?

[barnhart]

Mennonites believe in the gospel that Jesus preach - the gospel of the Kingdom of God. They aren’t lost in a salvation or a social justice gospel. Being citizens of the heavenly country Mennonites don’t join in an unequal yoke with kingdoms of this world and so have a drastically different view than Constantine and nearly all Protestants. I think it is that simple.

Ned, I certainly see the benefit of this view in promoting maturation in the spiritual walk. It definitely clears out the distractions, particularly in an election year. Was this view present in Anabaptism since the beginning or did it evolve into this perspective?

I think the root was not to clear out distraction but rather to be obedient to the teaching of Jesus that includes returning good for evil, loving enemies ECT.. this is simply not compatible with responsible Christendom citizenship.

[Josh]

Mennonites believe in the gospel that Jesus preach - the gospel of the Kingdom of God. They aren’t lost in a salvation or a social justice gospel. Being citizens of the heavenly country Mennonites don’t join in an unequal yoke with kingdoms of this world and so have a drastically different view than Constantine and nearly all Protestants. I think it is that simple.

Ned, I certainly see the benefit of this view in promoting maturation in the spiritual walk. It definitely clears out the distractions, particularly in an election year. Was this view present in Anabaptism since the beginning or did it evolve into this perspective?

When Anabaptism was founded, the Roman Catholic Church declared rebaptism a crime and used its alliance with the state to execute Anabaptists.

Needless to say, Anabaptists quickly decided not to yoke themselves to the state.

This is one of the fundamental differences between Catholicism and Anabaptism. The Catholic Church encourages participation in politics and voting and considers it a Christian duty. Anabaptists feel the opposite.

[temporal1]

When Anabaptism was founded, the Roman Catholic Church declared rebaptism a crime and used its alliance with the state to execute Anabaptists.

Needless to say, Anabaptists quickly decided not to yoke themselves to the state.

This is one of the fundamental differences between Catholicism and Anabaptism. The Catholic Church encourages participation in politics and voting and considers it a Christian duty. Anabaptists feel the opposite.

Anabaptism 101?
i knew nothing of the tough history when i first registered on MD.
Being a happy Lutheran, baptised as an adult, i was horrified at the history ignored. It was painful, but, i prefer reality.
It’s painful, but very interesting. It’s important to study history, to try to grasp how things unfolded.