(Constantinianism refers to the ungodly church/state relationship that was begun by the actions of Constantine the Great. We will review its religious aspect, and then ask questions about our present society and its leaning toward another Constantinianism.)

Although many Christians, much to the delight of those who love the Papacy, date the Christian revolt against Romanism from the 16th century, this dissent was already over a millennium old. Those who revolted against the developing structure of Rome were, in God's eyes, a noble army of Christians, but the movement was relatively unknown and badly splintered for obvious reasons.

Almost all of their public ceremonies had to be carried out under cover, and many were reduced to the "dens and caves of the earth" (Hebrews 11:38). Not being able to organize joint times of fellowships, the varying groups went off in various directions. Some of the dissention was in the ranks of those who could hardly (if at all) be called Christians, while it can be demonstrated there were those who, like the Waldensians, clung to an orthodox reading of scripture, capsulized in their "Noble Lesson", which predated the Reformation by at least five centuries.

The Roman Catholic Church called all of its foes "heretics." She had no desire, nor saw any need, of differentiation between the different groups. She could discern neither the nuances or the chasms of doctrinal teaching which separated them, but viewed them all as the common enemy. To her they were guilty of one and the same sin - that of challenging Rome's sacramental monopoly. Therefore her persecutions fell alike on Christian and non-Christian.

However, the rift between Catholic and the true Christian was early manifested and easily detected. To the Christian, the Church is Corpus Christi, the body of Christ, which consists of all believing folks and only believing folks. They were content to be part of a Body Whose Head had been put to death for them, even though they could not always humanly define the boundaries of that Body.

In the other view, the Church was Corpus Christianum, the body of "christened" society. This designation was solely for the convenience of the State, who showed gratitude by bearing arms for the Church and putting to death those who stood against the Church.

"Christianity" had been enacted legally; it was the law for all that were born that they must be christened, and the Church became a group of christened people. A sad day it was for professing Christianity when membership in the Church was made into law for all those who were merely born, instead of being born again.

Blame for this can largely be laid at the feet of two Christian Giants, Martin Luther and John Calvin. Leonard Verduin, in Reformers and their Stepchildren, states, "Luther stopped short of a full reformation, content to walk hand in hand with the State . . . bogged down halfway between Catholicism and New Testament organization." (p. 38)

Verduin is most likely on target with this charge, as one can discern a notable switch in Luther's concept of the advisability of yoking the Church to the civic authority. That probably was due to his realization through his being "kidnapped" and squirreled away in the Wartburg, that his Reformation would not really stand a chance of success without the help of the civil government.
The same time in Luther's life reveals an ecclesiological U-turn. Luther had been sympathetic to mild Anabaptist groups previously, but now he understood them to be a challenge to his church-state alliance. Luther's failure - whatever caused it - to embrace New Testament ecclesiology was the first nail in the coffin of the churches that would spring from his and similar movements.

A church allied to the State (Verduin calls it a sacral society) is an act-bound society, choosing rather to walk by sight than by faith. Being act-bound, it is of course far more vulnerable to sacramentalism, as it is bound together by ritual; beginning, of course, with the state christening an infant at the same time the church makes him Christian through the waters of baptism.

One problem with a Corpus Christi (Body of Christ) is that is private rather than public and therefore it is harder for the State to control it. State control of religion has been the bane of Christendom from the days Constantine. History buffs will recall that it was Constantine, for political reasons, who summoned the Council of Nicaea. Those for a public church-state alliance would say there is no sense of performing an act of religion if it is done in private. It loses the whole point of its existence.

One of deadliest results of a church bound by sacramental actions was that no longer was preaching the center of Christian worship. Now it was sacrament, and it is the preaching of the Cross that is the power of God. Diminishing the role of preaching is evident in sacramental church organizations.

Further, preaching was controlled by a hierarchy of "Christian" leaders who were themselves under the control of the State. Ulrich Zwingli said, "No one is to teach except those who have been sent." (Reformers, p. 151) Zwingli also succinctly observed that it was only in the churches who trace their ancestry back to ancient Anabaptist circles that salvation by sacramental manipulation is consistently repudiated.

Leonard Verduin adds, "To this day, we find a certain hesitancy, even on the part of Christians who plainly owe a debt to the pre- Reformation "heretics", to acknowledge the fact (Reformers, page 159)

A case in point was heard on a broadcast of "The Bible Answer Man," when Hank Hanegraaf hosted Ralph MacKenzie. Since both of these men stated that they believed present day Evangelicals owe a debt to Roman Catholicism and have to trace their roots back through the Roman Church, both scorned the idea that today's fundamentalism owes a far greater debt to those Anabaptists, whom the Church called heretics, and Verduin referred to as the "Stepchildren of the Reformers." A concise statement about the curse of church-state yoking comes from the same writer in his book Anatomy of a Hybrid. Verduin writes on page 84,

"It is clear, and significant, that early Christianity refrained from imposing, or seeking to impose, on society as a whole any of the articles of its faith. . . . (This) resulted from (their) conviction that the state was meant to be secular . . . invented for the sole purpose of keeping society from chaos. . . Early Christianity realized that one's membership in the state is a matter of course, not contingent on the exercise of choice, whereas membership in the church comes by way of a choice-making faith."

While the Roman Church (as well as some Protestant theologians) believe that the church-state hybrid proposed by Constantine and actuated by Theodosius was the salvation of Christianity, it can be well documented that true biblical Christianity was far healthier when being persecuted than it was when being pampered.

The very essence of Christianity is a core of men and women held together by a common decision to follow their Saviour. To band them together just because of their having been born in a "Christian" country is a denial of Christian faith. The religion of Jesus may look healthier if it is the religion of the realm, but history can attest to the fact that the concept of a state that supports the church and a church that is subservient to the state is oxymoronic for both parties.

Church/state relationships have long been, and still are, thorny paths which some try to tread barefoot. We have come to a position in our land that we are supposed to be so "Christian" that we frown on another's immorality while scarcely obeying the most rudimentary of Christian ethics. We take it for granted that leaders in a Christian society should behave like Christians, even though we ourselves do not always achieve that mark.

Morality in leaders is commendable and appreciated, but have we the right to expect Christian morality from leaders who are not Christians?

Why should "the office of the Presidency" exude a higher morality than the vast majority of its subjects who glory in unrighteousness via the television and movies?

Augustine tried to justify his placing of the imprint of the Church upon the entire Roman Empire. He was hindered by the fact that the New Testament teaching about the Body of Christ spoke of an organism that was not defined by human boundaries. The entire empire was Christianized by reason of imperial decree, but within the same empire Augustine could see were those who had exercised personal faith in Christ and were part of His Body.

The difficulty was that now those who were truly part of His Body would not accept the empire-church as truly a Church of Christ. This hurdle was overcome by Augustine's theory of predestination, which must lead to an invisible church known only to God. Therefore the bounds of the Church were obscured and even abandoned.

The fact that God knows those who are His is an indisputable biblical truth. That there is a Body of Christ of all saints, past and present, is a fact. But God never intended for a unknown group of saints to be the expression of His church to the world. There must be a group, basically discernable by man, that is holding forth the Word of truth and living lives consistent with that truth. This is His Body on the earth - comprised of all living men and women who are truly regenerated. For the most part, they find fellowship in a local church, which is the only microcosm of the Body of Christ visible in the world today.

To suggest that, because we live in a country with "Christian" foundations produces some kind of a "Christian" society is as great an aberration as suggesting that the Roman Empire became Christian when those within it were brought to baptism.

While the writings of the founders of America abound in the use of the word "God", we search in vain for the Name above all names; the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. There being no name given under heaven among men whereby we must be saved makes us wonder how many Founding Fathers were Christians in the biblical sense of the word. Only God knows.

We have many who champion the idealistic thought of a renewed morality in America, but can we have true Renewal without Biblical regeneration?
Chuck Colson very loosely defines the true Body of Christ and talks of the "Church". He is trying to wed the concept of Church and citizen morality without properly defining who or what the Church really is. The only relevance the "Church" has in this age is the impact of local churches in their localitites. While they will affect morals, the propagation of a purer morality is not their primary reason for existence.

Leonard Verduin wrote of the Hybrid of Constantinianism - a Church composed of all christened citizens of the state.

Today we are in danger of hatching a far worse hybrid - a Church composed of all who have correct societal interests. Should Christians accept as fellow Christians those who have the same moral goals? Is every rosary-praying person walking around an abortion mill a member of the Body of Christ? Should we not limit Christian fellowship to those who give a testimony of true biblical conversion?

These questions face us today is perhaps an even more frightening scenario than that which faced the Reformers of old. We must give correct answers, lest the dire prediction of our Lord is fulfilled, "When the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth?" Will the true definition of faith in Christ be overwhelmed by societal affiliation much as the true faith of the Reformation churches was eventually submerged by their Constantinian sins and the sacramental involvement which was very much a part of that compromise?

Back to the Index