NCCG.ORG, FAQ 396. Is It True That the Roman Emperor Constantine Created Christianity?

A. No. Constantine created the institutional Church with a defining creed, giving it the regrettable patronage of the state, from which unfortunately many evils have flowed but also considerable good as far as the creation of a Western Civilisation is concerned with its moral, ethical and libertarian base that has influenced the whole planet. Though the 'Church' would likely never have come into existence (though who knows, some other imperial patron might have arisen elsewhere in search of political validation and consolidation), 'Christianity' (or 'Messianism' if you prefer) undoubedly would have, albeit it in a different set of shapes. So I am not sure it would be true to say, as some argue, that Christianity might not have survived had the Church not been institutionalised. Certainly the outer form of the 'Church' would not have survived in its present form and would have gone on to assume other shapes, like the Celtic Church in Britain.

'Christianity', if we're going to be strict about word definitions and admit the common vernacular, has been around since New Testament times. However, we need to establish the clear meaning of words like 'Christianity' and 'church' before I answer the question because these words mean different things to different people at different times, and especially to ultra-messianics who try to demonise everything 'christian' to 'prove' that their version of messianism is the true one. One must also distinguish between a general concept which a word has come to represent (which can evolve in meaning through usage over a long period of time) and its strict etymological meaning.

For an examination of the etymology of the word 'church', see The Babylonian Circus which traces the word to the latin circe, the Roman goddess of grain from which we get our English words 'circus' and 'cereal' (after which the largest known asteroid in our Solar System, Ceres, was named). It also looks at the question of the relationship between modern churches and the Torah if that's your particular interest.

However, what interests me more is what people mean by the word 'church' in the 21st century, and frankly there are all sorts of views in circulation. If you're one of those people who thinks that 'church' means the people who adhere to Yah'shua's or Jesus' teachings, then quite clearly Yah'shua (Jesus) began it. Now it's true that some Christians believe that Peter founded the 'church' at the behest of Yah'shua (Jesus) Himself (Mt.16:18) though it's clear from the scriptural context that Christ was not speaking of a politicised institution - rather it was to be built upon regenerated, born-again people like Peter himself who obtained a revelation from Heaven as to who Christ was. Others would see the first 'church' as the Jerusalem 'Church' or congregation, created by the talmidim (disciples) after Yah'shua's (Jesus�) death, physical resurrection, and ascension, which was led by James until his death in 63 AD. I would agree with that though, in both cases, I prefer to call it the 'Messianic Community', but that's just a personal preference. The Judahite (Jewish) believers called each its several congregations a kehilah and the Greeks an ekklésia (from which we get the English word 'ecclesiastical') and a koinónia, meaning a 'fellowship' - see my article, Naming the Remnanteers).

But if you define the founding of the church as the first body of Christian leaders who could - or claimed they could - determine accurate Christian belief and establish with sound authority their definition of Christianity across the Mediterranean world [1], then the single man most responsible for that was undoubtedly Constantine I, the Emperor of Rome. Although the creation and organisation of the Church was clearly a process that took place over several decades, the founding event, in the minds of most orthodox Christians at any rate, was the Council of Nicea in AD 325. If that is what is meant by 'the church' or even 'Christianity', then I have have to admit that I problems accepting that.

A legitimate question to ask is this: if Yah'shua (Jesus) died sometime around 30 AD, why did it take nearly three centuries to found the organised 'Church?'...assuming that the 'organised Church' - the way it turned out at any rate - was ever in the divine (and not simply the permissive) will...and that's a pretty big assumption...then three main reasons are usually given, all of which are reasonable explanations of why things were so slow to develop:

1. Travel and communication were difficult at that time. It was difficult to make decisions and to run organisations that had offices more than a day�s walk - or perhaps horseback ride - apart. When trading businesses established offices in different ports, for example, they had to operate essentially as independent businesses because of the difficulties of co-ordination. Fledgling Christianity sent out missionaries to establish new Christian communities, but then had to allow each community to run itself, as indicated by Paul�s letters to the congregations (or 'churches') he established;
2. There was little agreement about Christianity�s beliefs and teachings, the nature of Yah'shua (Jesus) and Elohim (God), what writings were sacred and should be regarded as canonical, or even how to worship. There was a wide variety of views, many of which were later declared heretical by the 'Church' declared to be the 'true one' by Constantine: Donatists in North Africa, Gnostics in Egypt and Arians in Syria, to name the three main ones. And we mustn't forget all the other smaller groups - the Adoptionists, the Modalists, the Manicheans (the group Augustine started out in), the Montanists, the Marcionites, the Ebionites, the Nestorians and the Meletians, to name just a few. Bear in mind also that Constantine was never a true born-again Christian but remained a sun-worshipper until his dying day, but at least one member of his family was a devout believer; and
3. Imperial persecutions of Christians happened every few decades. These drove believers underground and caused many of them to turn away from the faith. But almost worse were the rifts that appeared afterward between believers who kept the faith and those who apostatised to save their lives, both of whom still considered themselves Christians.

political

and

Constantine saw Christianity�s belief in one Elohim (God) as opposed to many pagan gods as a way to unify the empire that had been so badly divided for two decades. But he discovered that Christianity itself was not unified, which was not good for him politically. He didn't want multiple denominations running around each claiming to be the truth and so destabilising the Empire with controversy, so he determined to establish only one form of Christianity and to abolish all the rest. And so he called the Council of Nicea in 325 to bring together the 1,800 bishops from around the Empire to work out official doctrine and provide the basis for a unified Church around which a unified Empire could form. Constantine paid for the entire council and even paid for travel, giving bishops the right of free transportation on the imperial postal system.

Now I don't propose to examine the in's and out's of the Council of Nicea. If you want to know more about this very dubious council, including its faked miracle involving a dead bishop who was supposed to have signed the new agreed-upon Creed after his death, see my article, The Council of Nicea: Was It Guided by the Holy Spirit?. The council laid the foundation of early orthodox - that's to say, Catholic - theology which has since been adopted by Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism, and declared several differing theologies heresies. Constantine�s support initially gave Orthodoxy the ability to require Christians to adopt their doctrinal formulation. While during the next few decades, the Church�s fortunes waxed and waned, within a century, Christianity had been declared the official religion of the Roman Empire and non-Christian religions were in steep decline. Well, it was a good investment politically...for Constantine and his Empire.

For orthodox Christians (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant), their creeds are so important that to all intents and purposes they are viewed as being on par with the Bible itself. To deny them is, in their eyes, to be a 'heretic' which for Protestants, at any rate, is a violation of their Sola Scriptura - 'Scripture Alone' - profession of faith and mantra. Needless to say that whilst all orthodox Christians (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and Protestant) accept the Nicean Creed, they aren't agreed on all Christendom's creeds. As Messianic Evangelicals (members of NCAY), we only accept the first of these agreed-upon creeds, the Apostles Creed which alone can be shown to be 100 per cent scriptural. This doesn't mean we reject everything to be found in the other orthodox creeds but simply that we do not give the creators of every speculative statement in them carte blanche to declare an interpretation as inerrant doctrine.

Certainly we accept that believers should be free to speculate about difficult questions like the nature of the Elohimhead/Godhead and what is meant by such doctrines as Justification by faith but not to force conformity to such creeds upon pain of excommunication, banishment and even execution (as occurred historically) as Constantine and parts of Christendom did - there's a reason there's so much confusion in Christendom and it's because such speculations were made absolute dogma - see Historical Christendom: Division, Complexity & Restoration. Besides, as someone once very wisely pointed out to be, you don't have to believe in the doctrine of justification by faith in order to be justified by faith.

The branches of orthodox 'Christianity' or the institutional 'Church'

For more on the earliest creeds and the teachings of the 12 apostles, and how Greek philosophy infiltrated early Christianity and introduced such doctrines as 'eternal punishment', read the article, The Earliest Creeds to see how one important original doctrine was suppressed by the institutional 'Church'. You may also be surprised, perhaps, to learn that there are actually two versions of the Nicean Creed.

Now to the words 'Christianity' and 'Christian'. If you believe these words are synonymous with the 'institutional Church' then we have a problem because the word 'Christian', though originally a term of abuse invented by pagans against the followers of Yah'shua (Jesus), it is recorded in Scripture and was accepted as a badge of honour by the earliest believers (Ac.11:26; 26:28; 1 Pet.4:16). Our own English words 'Christ' and 'Christian' are derived from the Greek (the lingua franca of the eastern part of the Roman Empire that would later become the Orthodox Christian Byzantine Empire), christos, which is simply the equivalent of the Hebrew mashiach meaning 'anointed one' or 'christ'. Thus for Messianic Evangelicals they all essentially mean the same thing so we have no problem calling ourselves Christian or Messianic - indeed we originally called ourselves 'New Covenant Christians', and still do, though the term 'Messianic Evangelical', which we coined, has become more popular, and indeed others who do not belong to NCAY have, I am happy to say, also begun using the term.

'Christianity' has come to include all branches of the faith which accept Christ or the Messiah as the centre of their belief system, though orthodox Christians (Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant) tend to think it only refers to them. It depends who you are and how you define the words. Even Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses call themselves 'Christian', regarded by most as cultists, as do Seventh Day Adventists and other groups not part of the 'orthodox' 'mainstream'. Which begs another question? What is 'mainstream' today wasn't in the past. We can agree or disagree as to who 'Christianity' includes. For some ultra-messianics (but not all messianics) it is 'apostate' as a whole...and Mormons would agree with them. It's the same with the word 'cult' - one man's 'cult' is another's 'orthodoxy', and vice versa (see, Cry Wolf! The Problem of Sects and Cults). Most of the time these words are simply terms of abuse and insult anyway, something true Christians/Messianics aren't supposed to engage in. Remember, 'you'll always be the 'bad guy', even if you're good, when the wrong person tells the story'.

This has been a long answer because a short answer is impossible to do the question justice, and there are lots of ramifications. Constantine wasn't a true believer, in my opinion, and I think the evidence is pretty strong that he wasn't. His mother Helena, however, was a strong Christian so we don't know what was going on behind the scenes or how Yahweh was using her and, through her, the Roman Empire to preserve Christianity through a less-than-desirable paganised instiution. We all of us, including messianics, come out of the legacy of instutional Christianity. The Protestant tried to reform is but hung on to some of its dubious doctrine and simply mutated its institutions. The Reformation didn't go far enough, but it was an important start. Now is the day of Restoration too.

Did Constantine establish instiutional Christianity? Undoubtedly. Does that meas that everything 'Christian' is wrong and is to be shunned? Of course not. Throwing out the baby with the bathwater is hardly intelligent. And those messianics who abuse all Christians by painting them with the same broad 'apostate' brush really ought to watch out since they themselves are a 'broad church' all by themselves with institutions borrowed from apostate Rabbinical Judaism. It has all kinds of doctrinal views, some of them heretical beyond a shadow of a doubt, with vast numbers of them denying the deity of Messiah as well as rejecting the apostle Paul - see Messianic Heresies Exposed. They're not 'teacher's pets', they're not that cat's whiskers, any more than orthodox Christians are, or anyone else who vainly imagines they are the 'one and only true church...or kehilah'. They are all compromised in some way and all need to repent.

Do I believe there is a truest expression of the faith once and for all delivered to the apostles? Absolutely, which is why were are here...along with all the other repenting, truth-seeking individuals and groups working hard to move into the fullness of the unadulterated of the emet (truth).

Keep journeying!

Endnotes

[1] For an historical perspective in the context of the whole Mediterranean world, see David Abulafia, A Human History of the Miditerranean (Allen Lane, London: 2011), beginning in Part 2, Chapter 8 (Our Sea, 146 BC-AD 150) or Chspter 9 (Old and New Faiths, AD 1-450) and on to the end of the book

Acknowledgements

[1] Paul V.M. Flesher, How Constantine Created the Christian Church