Ask the Author: Andrew J. Pottenger
Answered Questions (3)
Andrew J. Pottenger
While my view runs counter to popular assumptions and even some scholars (such as Timothy Barnes), I do not believe Constantine founded a Christian empire, actively attempted to convert the Roman Empire to Christianity, or that he somehow merged 'church and state'. Some specific reasons why are found in my book.
He was the first Roman emperor to publicly identify as a Christian. He went further than toleration or 'legalization' of Christianity in such identification, in his lavish spending geared toward bishops and churches, his church-building program, and legislation specifically affecting and favoring Christians. This was all part of his intention to be seen effectively managing divine favor according to his public espousal of Christianity.
The foundation of Constantinople and some of his legislation after 324 (when he defeated his last rival) has been understood as part of a deliberate attempt to 'Christianize' the Roman Empire. I believe these actually indicate an attempt by Constantine to harmonize all religious viewpoints -- particularly in order to minimize conflict between Christians and 'pagans' as well as among the Christians themselves. His favor of Christianity did not, I believe, extend to any deliberate attempt at 'Christianization' although I would say that his rule in this regard provided precedents later followed or extended further by his Christian successors.
He was the first Roman emperor to publicly identify as a Christian. He went further than toleration or 'legalization' of Christianity in such identification, in his lavish spending geared toward bishops and churches, his church-building program, and legislation specifically affecting and favoring Christians. This was all part of his intention to be seen effectively managing divine favor according to his public espousal of Christianity.
The foundation of Constantinople and some of his legislation after 324 (when he defeated his last rival) has been understood as part of a deliberate attempt to 'Christianize' the Roman Empire. I believe these actually indicate an attempt by Constantine to harmonize all religious viewpoints -- particularly in order to minimize conflict between Christians and 'pagans' as well as among the Christians themselves. His favor of Christianity did not, I believe, extend to any deliberate attempt at 'Christianization' although I would say that his rule in this regard provided precedents later followed or extended further by his Christian successors.
Andrew J. Pottenger
This is one of the most frequently asked questions I've received in regard to this emperor.
To begin with, what makes a 'real' Christian in the first place? How can this be determined, and who gets to decide? Too often, I think we in the modern world judge the past according to contemporary standards—much like people in one culture judge other cultures by their own moral norms. If we're going to evaluate the past, it's better to do so on its own terms rather than ours.
Constantine favored his Christians subjects greatly by ensuring the end of official persecution, granting them exemptions from taxes and civic duties, having churches built, and becoming personally involved in their internal conflicts. According to some surviving legislation, he desired the end of sacrifices, gladiatorial combats, and showed a concern for the poor uncharacteristic among other emperors. He referred to bishops as his 'beloved brothers', and wrote to them in terms that indicated his own personal allegiance to Christianity.
The 'Christian testimony' of Constantine is somewhat complicated, however, when we consider that he may have been responsible for the deaths of his oldest son, Crispus, and his second wife Fausta in 326. Crispus was executed, and Fausta was discovered shortly afterward having suffocated in a bath. His self-presentation in coins, statues, and inscriptions (famously the Arch of Constantine which still stands next to the Colosseum in Rome) could be interpreted in terms to which either pagans or Christians could react positively. He spoke rather harshly against the Jews in terms that would make any post-Holocaust human being squirm uncomfortably at the least. He was baptized at the end of his life, but the bishop who performed the ceremony was closely associated with earlier support for a condemned heretic.
Having considered the available evidence, I've concluded that Constantine was indeed a 'real' Christian—or, at least, he genuinely believed he was a Christian. This claim does not seem to have been disputed by other Christians, even the early monks or powerful personalities like Athanasius of Alexandria. I believe that Constantine understood his loyalty to the Christian God in terms of patronage and divine favor: he believed that God had blessed with him victories in battle, therefore he owed his divine patron displays of gratitude.
This is not to suggest he was a perfect or ideal Christian, as other aspects of his record also indicate. Yet, it seems clear that his self-identification as a Christian was not a mere pose, as it so often has been among rulers and world leaders since. His words and acts that suggest otherwise might perhaps be understood by recalling the lives of biblical figures such as Moses (a killer) or David (a killer and an adulterer), for example.
But it was never my goal to defend or define the Christian profession of Constantine as genuine. Instead, my book attempts to understand better why this emperor became involved in conflicts internal to the Christian communities and how he used his power to address them.
To begin with, what makes a 'real' Christian in the first place? How can this be determined, and who gets to decide? Too often, I think we in the modern world judge the past according to contemporary standards—much like people in one culture judge other cultures by their own moral norms. If we're going to evaluate the past, it's better to do so on its own terms rather than ours.
Constantine favored his Christians subjects greatly by ensuring the end of official persecution, granting them exemptions from taxes and civic duties, having churches built, and becoming personally involved in their internal conflicts. According to some surviving legislation, he desired the end of sacrifices, gladiatorial combats, and showed a concern for the poor uncharacteristic among other emperors. He referred to bishops as his 'beloved brothers', and wrote to them in terms that indicated his own personal allegiance to Christianity.
The 'Christian testimony' of Constantine is somewhat complicated, however, when we consider that he may have been responsible for the deaths of his oldest son, Crispus, and his second wife Fausta in 326. Crispus was executed, and Fausta was discovered shortly afterward having suffocated in a bath. His self-presentation in coins, statues, and inscriptions (famously the Arch of Constantine which still stands next to the Colosseum in Rome) could be interpreted in terms to which either pagans or Christians could react positively. He spoke rather harshly against the Jews in terms that would make any post-Holocaust human being squirm uncomfortably at the least. He was baptized at the end of his life, but the bishop who performed the ceremony was closely associated with earlier support for a condemned heretic.
Having considered the available evidence, I've concluded that Constantine was indeed a 'real' Christian—or, at least, he genuinely believed he was a Christian. This claim does not seem to have been disputed by other Christians, even the early monks or powerful personalities like Athanasius of Alexandria. I believe that Constantine understood his loyalty to the Christian God in terms of patronage and divine favor: he believed that God had blessed with him victories in battle, therefore he owed his divine patron displays of gratitude.
This is not to suggest he was a perfect or ideal Christian, as other aspects of his record also indicate. Yet, it seems clear that his self-identification as a Christian was not a mere pose, as it so often has been among rulers and world leaders since. His words and acts that suggest otherwise might perhaps be understood by recalling the lives of biblical figures such as Moses (a killer) or David (a killer and an adulterer), for example.
But it was never my goal to defend or define the Christian profession of Constantine as genuine. Instead, my book attempts to understand better why this emperor became involved in conflicts internal to the Christian communities and how he used his power to address them.
Andrew J. Pottenger
A number of influences came together at the right time when I began putting some ideas together in preparation for pursuing my doctoral degree. I've long been fascinated by the ancient Romans, having grown up enjoying films like Ben-Hur (1959), Quo Vadis (1951) or Cleopatra (1963). Studying church history for the first time as an undergrad, reading it for fun in the years afterward, and a first visit to Rome were all significant influences. However, the largely negative and one-sided narrative I received concerning Constantine years later in seminary really stuck in my head, and I was determined to explore this emperor in-depth for myself and make up my own mind.
About Goodreads Q&A
Ask and answer questions about books!
You can pose questions to the Goodreads community with Reader Q&A, or ask your favorite author a question with Ask the Author.
See Featured Authors Answering Questions
Learn more