WHAT CHANGED WHEN THE EMPEROR ENTERED CHURCH AFFAIRS?
FROM PERSECUTED BISHOPS TO IMPERIAL FAVOR
For nearly three centuries, Christianity existed without the general support of the Roman government.
Sometimes Christians were tolerated.
Sometimes they were left alone.
At other times, they were persecuted.
Some bishops were imprisoned.
Some Christians lost property.
Some died for their faith.
Then the situation changed dramatically.
In the early fourth century, Emperor Constantine began favoring Christianity.
Christians gained legal protection. The emperor supported church leaders, contributed resources, and became involved in disputes among Christians.
That did not create the office of bishop.
The bishop was already there.
It did not create regional church organization.
That was already developing.
It did not create arguments about apostolic succession.
Those existed before Constantine.
But Constantine brought something new into the relationship between the church and the Roman government:
IMPERIAL POWER.
And that relationship would have lasting consequences.
1. JESUS DESCRIBED A KINGDOM DIFFERENT FROM EARTHLY KINGDOMS
Jesus stood before Pilate and said:
“My kingdom is not of this world.”
— John 18:36
Jesus did not mean that His kingdom had nothing to do with people living in this world.
He continued:
“If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight.”
— John 18:36
His kingdom did not originate from earthly political power, nor was it established by an army fighting to place Him on an earthly throne.
Jesus commissioned His disciples to preach the gospel and make disciples.
The apostles preached.
They persuaded.
They suffered.
They planted churches.
When the authorities commanded them to stop preaching, Peter and the other apostles answered:
“We ought to obey God rather than men.”
— Acts 5:29
The apostles did not depend upon Caesar to establish the church or enforce its teaching.
Yet the gospel spread throughout the Roman world.
That gives us a starting point for examining what happened in the fourth century.
2. THEN CAME CONSTANTINE
The persecution associated with Emperor Diocletian and his fellow rulers began in A.D. 303.
Christians suffered.
Church buildings were destroyed.
Scriptures were confiscated.
Some clergy were imprisoned.
Then political circumstances changed.
In A.D. 313, Constantine and Licinius agreed upon a policy of religious toleration commonly associated with the Edict of Milan.
Christians were granted freedom to practice their religion.
Property previously confiscated from Christian communities was to be restored.
That was an enormous change.
Christians could worship without the same threat of punishment simply for being Christians.
They could recover property and conduct their religious life more openly.
We should not confuse freedom from persecution with the later use of imperial power in church affairs.
Religious toleration and imperial control are not the same thing.
The question for this study is what happened as toleration developed into active imperial favor and involvement.
3. CONSTANTINE DID MORE THAN ALLOW CHRISTIANS TO WORSHIP
Constantine did not simply announce that Christians were free to practice their religion.
He became actively involved in Christian affairs.
He favored Christian leaders.
He supported the construction of church buildings.
He made gifts to churches.
He gave bishops public honor.
He became involved in disputes among Christians.
And he summoned councils of bishops.
The relationship between church leadership and political power had changed.
A bishop who might once have faced punishment from an emperor could now be invited to an imperial gathering.
Church property that had once been confiscated could now receive imperial support.
Bishops could become publicly recognized figures with access to the emperor.
But we must not assume that every bishop welcomed every form of imperial involvement, or that imperial favor removed all danger and disagreement.
The change was significant precisely because it created new opportunities and new problems.
4. THE DONATIST CONTROVERSY SHOWED THE NEW RELATIONSHIP
Even before the Council of Nicaea, Constantine became involved in a major church dispute in North Africa.
The controversy arose partly from disagreements about the conduct and legitimacy of church leaders during and after persecution.
Christians on opposing sides disputed who should be recognized as the rightful bishop of Carthage.
The controversy became known as the Donatist controversy.
Members of the dispute appealed to imperial authority.
Constantine became involved in arranging for bishops to hear the case.
A council met at Rome in A.D. 313.
A larger council met at Arles in A.D. 314.
The emperor became involved in the effort to resolve a dispute about Christian leadership and church fellowship.
That is important.
Christians had faced internal disputes long before Constantine.
Paul addressed problems at Corinth.
The apostles and elders met to consider the circumcision controversy in Acts 15.
Churches struggled with false teachers.
But the New Testament does not describe Christians asking Caesar to determine which party in an internal church dispute should receive official recognition.
Now an emperor was taking part in the process by which competing Christian claims were examined and addressed.
Imperial involvement did not guarantee that everyone would accept the resulting decisions.
The Donatist controversy continued.
The imperial involvement eventually went further. Constantine attempted to use government power against the Donatists when they refused to accept the decisions against them. The effort failed to end the division, and he later abandoned that policy. This showed that imperial involvement in church disputes could move beyond arranging councils and recognizing decisions to the use of political coercion.
It also raised a serious question:
What should happen when a church dispute becomes a matter of imperial concern?
5. THEN CAME THE CONTROVERSY INVOLVING ARIUS
Early in the fourth century, a major theological controversy arose concerning the relationship between the Father and the Son.
Arius, a presbyter in Alexandria, came into conflict with Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria.
The disagreement spread beyond their local church.
Other bishops became involved.
Christian communities were divided.
Constantine sought to restore unity.
After earlier attempts at reconciliation failed, he took a much larger step.
THE EMPEROR SUMMONED A COUNCIL.
That council met at Nicaea in A.D. 325.
6. WHO CALLED THE COUNCIL OF NICAEA?
This is worth noticing.
An apostle did not call it.
The bishop of Rome did not independently summon the bishops of the empire.
Constantine convened the council.
The emperor sent invitations to bishops and made imperial transportation and support available for their attendance.
He attended the gathering, addressed the bishops, and urged them toward agreement.
The bishops debated the theological questions and formulated the council's decisions.
We should not claim that Constantine personally invented the council's theology.
That would go beyond the evidence.
Nor should we describe the bishops as though they had no role in deciding what the council taught.
But neither should we miss what had happened.
A Roman emperor had become a major participant in bringing bishops together to address a Christian theological controversy.
That was a different relationship between the church and the state from the one described in the New Testament.
7. COMPARE NICAEA WITH ACTS 15
Acts 15 records a major doctrinal controversy.
Some Christians were teaching:
“Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.”
— Acts 15:1
The apostles and elders met in Jerusalem.
They discussed the matter.
Peter spoke.
Paul and Barnabas reported what God had done among the Gentiles.
James appealed to Scripture.
A decision was communicated to the churches.
Who was involved?
The apostles.
The elders.
The church.
The decision was presented as consistent with the work of the Holy Spirit and the teaching of Scripture.
Caesar did not summon the meeting.
Roman political authority was not used to establish its conclusion.
Now compare that with Nicaea.
The bishops still discussed Christian doctrine.
They still appealed to Scripture and their understanding of the apostolic faith.
But the emperor had summoned them, supported their gathering, and taken part in the proceedings.
The theological discussion was now taking place within a new relationship with imperial power.
That does not tell us whether every conclusion reached at Nicaea was right or wrong.
It tells us that the circumstances in which church leaders addressed disputes had changed.
8. NICAEA ALSO SHOWS HOW CHURCH GOVERNMENT HAD DEVELOPED
The canons of Nicaea are revealing.
Canon 4 concerns the appointment of bishops.
It calls for the bishops of a province to participate and assigns the metropolitan a recognized role in confirming an appointment.
Canon 5 addresses the treatment of people excluded from communion and calls for provincial gatherings of bishops to examine such matters.
Canon 6 recognizes established customs and privileges associated with major centers, including Alexandria, Rome, and Antioch.
By A.D. 325, the surviving evidence shows:
Bishops with responsibility for local churches.
Provincial gatherings of bishops.
Metropolitans with recognized responsibilities.
Major episcopal centers with established regional privileges.
Constantine did not create all these arrangements.
Their development preceded his involvement.
But the empire could now interact with an existing structure of bishops and councils.
That made imperial involvement in church affairs easier to organize.
9. WHY DID THAT STRUCTURE MATTER?
The Roman Empire governed large territories through cities, provinces, and regional administration.
Christian communities had also developed relationships extending beyond individual congregations.
Bishops communicated with one another.
They met in councils.
Some bishops held recognized responsibilities within provinces.
Others were associated with major regional centers.
These structures were not identical to the machinery of Roman government.
We should not claim that the church simply copied the empire's organization.
But there were points at which the two could interact.
An emperor could summon bishops to discuss a dispute affecting many churches.
He could communicate with recognized church leaders.
He could support councils and respond to their decisions.
An already-developing church organization now operated in direct relationship with imperial administration.
That is one of the major changes of the fourth century.
10. THE BISHOP'S PUBLIC POSITION CHANGED
Remember the earliest elders.
Peter told them to shepherd God's flock:
“Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.”
— 1 Peter 5:3
Now consider a fourth-century bishop.
He might still be a faithful shepherd.
He might care deeply about his people.
But his public position could be very different.
Bishops could receive imperial recognition.
They could attend councils supported by the emperor.
They could enter imperial palaces.
They could become important figures in public affairs.
Churches could receive imperial generosity.
The office could carry public prestige that was not part of the circumstances described for the elders of the earliest congregations.
That does not prove that every bishop became corrupt.
It does mean that bishops now operated in a different social and political environment.
And that environment brought new responsibilities, opportunities, and temptations.
11. MONEY ENTERED THE PICTURE IN A NEW WAY
Christians had always given money.
Acts describes believers helping those in need.
Paul collected contributions for poor Christians.
Churches supported gospel workers.
Money itself was nothing new.
What changed was the scale and source of some of the resources available to churches.
Imperial favor could support the construction of large buildings.
The emperor could make substantial gifts.
Church property could increase.
Bishops could become responsible for administering significant resources.
None of this automatically proves wrongdoing.
A building can be useful.
Money can feed the hungry.
Property can serve the congregation and its neighbors.
But wealth also brings responsibility and influence.
It can create disagreements about who controls resources and how they should be used.
The question is not whether a church possesses a building or receives a gift.
It is whether its resources serve the purposes Christ gave His people.
That question remains important for churches today.
12. EUSEBIUS DESCRIBES THE EMPEROR HONORING BISHOPS
Eusebius of Caesarea greatly admired Constantine.
His account of the emperor's life should therefore be read with an awareness of that favorable perspective.
Nevertheless, his description is valuable evidence of how Constantine publicly treated Christian bishops.
Eusebius describes the emperor summoning bishops, providing support for their attendance at Nicaea, and receiving them at his court.
He also describes an imperial banquet for the bishops after the council.
Consider the contrast.
Only a few decades earlier, Christians had suffered a severe persecution under imperial authority.
Now bishops were guests of the emperor.
That is a striking change in their public position.
Eusebius regarded Constantine's support as a cause for celebration.
Other Christians, then and later, would raise questions about the consequences of close ties between church leadership and political power.
The historical event and the judgment we make about its consequences are not the same thing.
We need to distinguish them.
13. BUT CONSTANTINE WAS STILL AN EMPEROR
Constantine favored Christianity.
He sought unity among Christians.
But he was also a political ruler responsible for governing an empire.
Religious disagreement could become a matter of concern to imperial administration.
A dispute that began among Christian teachers might draw the attention of the emperor.
A council's decisions could acquire political consequences.
And imperial support could affect which church leaders or groups received public recognition.
That created a new difficulty.
What happens when political power supports one side of a Christian disagreement?
What happens when a later emperor supports a different side?
How should Christians respond if an emperor favors a teaching they believe contradicts Scripture?
Those questions became increasingly important as emperors continued to involve themselves in church affairs.
Imperial favor did not end theological disputes.
In some circumstances, it gave those disputes an additional political dimension.
14. THE CHURCH GAINED FREEDOM AND FACED NEW QUESTIONS
Christians gained important protections.
They could worship more openly.
They could recover property.
They could build meeting places.
They could gather with less fear of punishment simply for being Christians.
Those changes mattered.
But imperial favor also created a new relationship between church leadership and state power.
The emperor could support Christian gatherings and institutions.
He could influence the circumstances in which church disputes were considered.
He could recognize particular leaders and councils.
And later emperors could take different positions.
The church was no longer simply a community living under Roman government. Its leaders were now interacting directly with the emperor in matters affecting Christian organization and doctrine.
That relationship would continue to develop.
15. JESUS HAD WARNED ABOUT A DIFFERENT KIND OF GREATNESS
The disciples once argued about greatness.
Jesus said:
“Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.”
— Matthew 20:25
Then He said:
“But it shall not be so among you.”
— Matthew 20:26
Jesus described greatness among His disciples in terms of service.
That standard did not change when Constantine became emperor.
It did not change when bishops entered palaces.
It did not change when churches acquired impressive buildings.
And it has not changed today.
Whatever responsibilities a church leader holds, the question remains:
Does he use his position to serve Christ's people or to seek greatness for himself?
We should ask that question about leaders in every century, including our own.
16. CONSTANTINE DID NOT CREATE THE HIERARCHY
This deserves repeating because history should be treated fairly.
By the time Constantine became involved in church affairs:
A single bishop had already been distinguished from the presbyters in churches reflected by Ignatius' letters.
Ignatius had already connected baptism and the Eucharist with the bishop's authority.
Apostolic succession had already become an important argument in early Christian writings.
Regional relationships among bishops were already developing.
Constantine did not invent those things.
What changed was that an emperor began actively supporting and interacting with an existing church leadership structure.
Imperial power and developing church authority now had a direct relationship.
That relationship increased the public importance of bishops.
It also gave emperors a reason to concern themselves with disputes about Christian leadership and teaching.
17. LOOK AT THE DEVELOPMENT SO FAR
Put the evidence beside itself.
NEW TESTAMENT
Local congregations have elders who are also called overseers.
They are instructed to shepherd God's people.
EARLY SECOND CENTURY
Ignatius describes one bishop distinguished from the presbytery and deacons.
He connects the bishop with the unity of the congregation and the administration of baptism and the Eucharist.
SECOND AND THIRD CENTURIES
The bishop's office becomes increasingly important in discussions of apostolic teaching, church unity, discipline, baptism, and communion.
Regional relationships among bishops develop.
FOURTH CENTURY
The emperor grants Christians legal protection and actively favors the church.
He summons and supports councils of bishops.
Church leaders receive public recognition and imperial support.
Imperial authority and church authority now interact in ways not described in the New Testament.
That is the development we have traced.
READ IT FOR YOURSELF
Begin with these New Testament passages:
Matthew 20:20–28
John 18:33–38
Acts 5:27–32
Acts 14:21–23
Acts 15
Acts 20:17–32
1 Peter 5:1–4
Then investigate the historical evidence:
The toleration associated with Milan — A.D. 313
The Donatist controversy
The Council of Arles — A.D. 314
The Council of Nicaea — A.D. 325
Canons 4, 5, and 6 of Nicaea
Eusebius, Life of Constantine, especially his account of Nicaea and the imperial banquet
Then ask:
Did Constantine create the office of bishop?
No. The office existed before him.
Did Constantine create every part of the developing hierarchy?
No. Important developments preceded his reign.
But ask another question:
What changed when the emperor began supporting church leaders and participating in the resolution of church disputes?
The answer takes us to the next stage of our study.
Among the important episcopal centers of the fourth century was Rome.
It had long been a major city of the empire.
Its church was associated with Peter and Paul.
Its bishop would eventually make claims extending far beyond his own congregation.
But how did that happen?
And how did the bishop of Rome's position come to differ from that of other bishops?
That is where we go next.
TEXT B4 TRADITION
Read First. Conclude Later.
RETURN TO MAIN SERIES: One Church, So Many Divisions
NEXT STUDY: HOW DID THE BISHOP OF ROME BECOME DIFFERENT FROM THE OTHER BISHOPS?