Christopher Jensen

Leitharts Formidable Defense of Constantine

In a truly enjoyable account of both the life and contributions of

Constantine, Dr. Peter Liethart expertly goes about the daunting task of

defending Constantine from what he describes as the movement of Anti-

Constantinianism1 that plagues popular literature and modern theology. While

this movement questions motives for both Constantines conversion to

Christianity and his desire to unify the church, as well as, the claim that he was

truly Christian at all, Leithart argues this is a complete misreading of the actual

Constantine by historians and theologians motivated by particular scholarly

views and diverging religious beliefs. Thus, Leitharts goal with Defending

Constantine is to take on the task of defending, and also redeeming Constantine,

so that his actions and impact are accurately understood. Much of the book is

directed at three basic topics: 1) clarifying the historicity of Constantine, 2)

Constantines Christian impact to the political sphere, and 3) contributions to his

Christian vision of political leadership.

Of course, any discussion of Constantine has to include his conversion

story, prior to the Battle of the Milvian Bridge in 312. Leithart provides plenty of

background around the faults of the Roman Tetrarchy that led to this inevitable

moment where one Caesar consolidates power, and makes no attempt to claim

that Constantines motivation was anything other than a power-grab. Where

Leithart does clarifying

motivations is concerning the

change of the battle standard to

the sign of the cross, saying

that this move would not have Figure 1: The halo and cross of the Sun Halo, or Sun Dog

been made lightly the Roman armies venerated their colors and a religious

Constantine would not chance insulting the gods.2 Of course, this story in its

entirety is questioned by modern scholarship and pop culture. Leithart argues it

is authentic, although he is persuaded by a suggestion from Peter Weiss that the

vision that inspired the sign was actually a sun halo (see Figure 1) witnessed by

Constantine and his troops two years earlier in Gaul.3 Constantines conversion,

according to Leithart, most likely occurred over time, between 310-312, and was

not an immediate Dasmascus road experience.4

Scholars have called Constantines motives into question. Burckhardt calls

his a great lust for power. Carrol (of Constantines Sword) suggests his

manipulation of the church was shrewd. Gibbon suggest than while may have

had early greatness (referencing Eusebius account), he fell into addiction with

luxury and sensuality (referencing Zosimus).5 Of course, Leithart says I beg to

differ6. Since the heart of Constantine at conversion cannot be known, Leithart

suggests we look at his words and deeds in our attempts to evaluate the veracity

of his claim to Christianity.

Regarding claims that Christianity merely represented a means for

Constantine to solidify his control across the empire, Leithart points out that only

10 to 15% of the population was thought to be Christian at this time. Similarly,

Leithart argues that Constantines desire for unity in the Christian church, also

called into question, is better explained in the context of the age - that is,

Constantine wanted to heal divisions in the church to find favor with God.7 For

Leithart, this is a sincere motive, and he points to Constantines letter to Bishops

Eusebius and Theognis as evidence of this desire .

"Delay not, then, dear friends: delay not, you ministers of God, and faithful
servants of him who is our common Lord and Savior: begin from this moment to
discard the causes of that disunion which has come among you, and remove move
the perplexities of controversy by embracing the principles of peace. For by such
conduct you will at the same time be acting in a manner most pleasing to the
supreme God, and you will confer an exceeding favor on me who am your fellow-
servant."8

Again and again, Leithart points to the actual writings of Constantine to

illustrate his command of Christian concepts, such as his sermon, Oration to the

Saints, which includes a defense of monotheism and of the divinity of the Son as

the Christ, as well as a summary of the Gospel and the miracles of Jesus.

According to Eusebius account, Constantine took on the role of minister and

teacher often in his court.9 Leitharts point is that Constantine demonstrated a

facility with the material.

Leithart provides several examples of how Constantines Christianity

impacted the political sphere, starting with the allowance for ecclesiastical courts.

Roman courts were exceptionally tilted toward the rich and powerful, so as a

remedy, Constantine made appeal to the court of bishops an option in 323, thus

enabling the church with state function and power.10 Constantine did away with

gladiatorial combat with its fight to the death spectacle11 and with the

requirement to sacrifice to the state. (Constantine had first refused the sacrifice

at the Capitoline in 312.12) Most importantly, he granted legal status to

Christianity.13

Leithart takes particular issue with Mennonite John Howard Yoders

depiction of Constantine as the father of a fourth century heresy14 that took the

church sideway until the Reformation, particular the Anabaptist contributions to

it, saved the faith. Leitharts methodical rebuttal is so emblematic of his mission

to redeem Constantine that, personally, I cannot help but think this alone may

have actually been the true impetus for Leitharts book. Unquestionably, it is

central to the argument that Leithart makes of Constantines contribution to the

political world.

When Yoder finds fault with Constantine for undoing the pacifistic nature

of the faith into an endorsement for war and violence15, Leithart counters that

this is conjecture and lays out a lengthy counter proposal that includes quoting

Origen saying Christians wrestle

"in prayers to God on behalf of those who are fighting in a righteous cause, and
for the king who reigns righteously, that whatever is opposed to those who act
righteously may be destroyed!"16

The disagreements with Yoder continue, and for the sake of brevity, I will

summarize these as fundamental differences in worldview, with Yoder the

Anabaptist arguing that Constantine damaged the church by introducing it to

empire and, thus, to the mechanisms of the state and politics, and with Leithart

the Catholic questioning why that necessarily has to be a bad thing. I

purposefully raise the denominations of these two gentlemen because I believe it

reveals much about their motivations. For Yoder, the issue is that all Christians,

like the Mennonites, should desire to be set apart and that flirtation between

the church and state is potentially dangerous. For Leithart, the mission before us

all is to restore the validity of Christendom that a state in the modern age can

be collection of people with a shared recognition of Christ as king. In similar

fashion, he imagines this Christendom as a place where rulers and the church act

like Jesus at the level of the nation.17 This theme of restoring Christendom is

also present in Leitharts book, The End of Protestantism, where he argues for

restoration of the Catholic and Reformed churches.

For me, this was an exceptional book on many levels. Leithart does an

admirable job reminding us why it is important to view the entire Constantine

story in historical context, rather than through our own myopic, chrono-centric

filter. Of course, the historical material he sets up is ultimately there to provide

the context and foundation that he needs in order to address the redemption of

Constantine and the larger issue of Christendom, ala the Baptism of the State. At

the heart of it all, this is what Leithart is driving at: that Christendom is not only

a worthwhile goal, but is perhaps the only alternative that insures our survival:

we can escape apocalypse. But this can only happen on certain conditions:
only through reevangelization, only through the revival of a purified
Constantinianism, only by the formation of a Christically centered politics, only
through fresh public confession that Jesus' city is the model city, his blood the
only expiating blood, his sacrifice the sacrifice that ends sacrifice. An apocalypse
can be averted only if modern civilization, like Rome, humbles itself and is willing
to come forward to be baptized.18
Christopher Jensen

Notes

1. Peter J. Leithart. Defending Constantine: The Twilight of an Empire and

2. Ibid, Kindle Locations 705-709

3. Ibid, Kindle Locations 743

4. Ibid, Kindle Locations 764-765

5. Ibid, Kindle Locations 781-785

6. Ibid, Kindle Locations 795

7. Ibid, Kindle Locations 812

8. Ibid, Kindle Locations 860-863

9. Ibid, Kindle Locations 894

10. Ibid, Kindle Locations 2275-2276

11. Ibid, Kindle Locations 2257-2258

12. Ibid, Kindle Locations 925-926

13. Ibid, Kindle Locations 2114-2116

14. Ibid, Kindle Locations 1840-1841

15. Ibid, Kindle Locations 2723-2724

16. Ibid, Kindle Locations 2866-2867

17. Ibid, Kindle Locations 3683

18. Ibid, Kindle Locations 3736-3738

Previously, I had erroneously referred to Leithart as Catholic. Correctly, he is a