Defending Constantine: The Twilight of an Empire and the Dawn of Christendom by Peter J. Leithart

Oct 22, 2012 Chris Little rated it 4 of 5 stars

What happened when the Roman world gained a Christian leader?

What events happened to bring this leader, Constantine, to be Augustus of both east and west? What consequences happened for the Roman world? And, perhaps most contentiously, what happened to Christianity as a result of the change? Within a couple of decades, churches went from being persecuted under Diocletian to receiving official support from Constantine.

The answers to these questions have many implications for how we express histor...more What happened when the Roman world gained a Christian leader?

What events happened to bring this leader, Constantine, to be Augustus of both east and west? What consequences happened for the Roman world? And, perhaps most contentiously, what happened to Christianity as a result of the change? Within a couple of decades, churches went from being persecuted under Diocletian to receiving official support from Constantine.

The answers to these questions have many implications for how we express history, politics, theology and theological politics.

Leithart's book - to oversimplify - shows that a lot happened! The range of events and implications, however, are so complex that they should not be reduced to cliché summaries (eg. 'The church fell in the fourth century').

Each chapter of Defending Constantine is a fascinating essay on a particular angle of the history of events or theological implications of that history. At first, I found it hard to discern where the book was going, overall. Yet it all came together in the wonderful final chapter, 'Rome Baptized.' At the start of this chapter, Leithart summarises his conclusions about Constantine the man and emperor. Then the majority of the chapter considers Constantine's lasting effect on Rome (and on politics). In Leithart's terms, Constantine desacrificed Rome and baptised Rome.

Through the whole work, a constant sparring partner is John Howard Yoder. Yoder's theological politics casts a long shadow over much contemporary thinking about society, but I am not able to say how fairly Yoder has been represented. Leithart treats Yoder with great respect: with some deep agreement, but equally with points of profound disagreement. Defending Constantine could serve as a follow-up to study of Christian social ethics or (as in my case) a spur to reading Yoder and others in this field.

It's also worth nothing that this book has a most useful bibliography of primary and secondary sources.

Conclusion: for its history and for provoking thought on theology and politics, recommended.(less)

like · see review

Oct 21, 2011 Rosanne Lortz rated it 5 of 5 stars

The Emperor Constantine is one of those people who could very ably defend himself while alive, but now, having the misfortune of being dead, has become a whipping boy for church historians and theologians alike. In his book Defending Constantine: The Twilight of an Empire and the Dawn of Christendom, Peter Leithart attempts to wipe the rotten vegetables off Constantine’s face and scour the reputation that the centuries have sullied.

A common version of Constantine’s story, one that Leithart sets...more

1 like · like · see review

Oct 04, 2011 Matt rated it 5 of 5 stars

Americans tend to assume that we cannot have religious freedom without a separation of church and state. But Leithart shows that Constantine created true religious freedom almost a millennium and a half before the US Constitution and within a Christian empire. How did he do this?

First of all he didn't try to turn the church into an arm of the state. Constantine tried to reform his empire with the gospel of Christ, but he did not try to control the church. He respected the church as a distinct p...more Americans tend to assume that we cannot have religious freedom without a separation of church and state. But Leithart shows that Constantine created true religious freedom almost a millennium and a half before the US Constitution and within a Christian empire. How did he do this?

First of all he didn't try to turn the church into an arm of the state. Constantine tried to reform his empire with the gospel of Christ, but he did not try to control the church. He respected the church as a distinct polis with its own sphere of authority. For instance, he called the council of Nicea but didn't attempt to determine its outcome. He tolerated paganism in the civil realm, but let the church carry on its own culture war with the empire's pagan past. Compare this to conservatives turning the Christian Coalition of the 1990s into a religious arm for the Republican party (See Stephan Carter's God's Name in Vain).

Now we might consider Constantine's Christian reforms of the Roman state dangerous, but without them, Leithart points out, the state would have continued to allow men to abandon their wives through divorce, treat their unwanted infants as disposable property, sell their children into slavery, and enjoy murder in the gladiatorial arenas as entertainment. Before Constantine, equality could not be assumed. That came from the Christian doctrine of creation, which taught that all people are made in the image of God.

Leithart shows that sacrifice to the Roman gods and the deified emperor was the central religious act in a very religious empire. Constantine broke with the pagan Roman past by not offering the customary sacrifices after his triumph at the Milvian Bridge in 312. He turned the back the demise of the empire by looking out for the disadvantaged. He gave tax breaks to poor parents who couldn't afford to raise their children. Constantine reformed the corrupt judicial system of Rome by turning justice for the those who couldn't afford representation over to ecclesiastical courts.

Constantine had his faults but he knew that the state needed the moral authority of the church in order to defend women, children, and the poor. We are now losing the ground he gained by promoting a secular understanding of the separation of church from the state. Without a transcendent basis for our laws everyone does what is right in their own eyes. There are no absolutes in Israel, and we are re-paganizing at an alarming rate with abortion, no-fault divorce, and commercial combinations that widen the gap between rich and poor.

Would to God that more Christians would, like Leithart, defend Constantine instead of Congress. (less)

like · see review

May 26, 2011 Jesse Broussard rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: non-fiction, excellent, reference, world-class

Wow. This is the first time I've decided to intentionally wait over two months before reviewing a book.

To get all the boring yet essential stuff out of the way: Leithart is brilliant. This is not really news to any of my classmates; it's like saying "Obama is president." Yeah. We know that. But to those of you who haven't had the privilege of taking Theology from the guy who was being published in theological journals before I was born and would still manage to smoke me in basketball, allow me t...more Wow. This is the first time I've decided to intentionally wait over two months before reviewing a book.

To get all the boring yet essential stuff out of the way: Leithart is brilliant. This is not really news to any of my classmates; it's like saying "Obama is president." Yeah. We know that. But to those of you who haven't had the privilege of taking Theology from the guy who was being published in theological journals before I was born and would still manage to smoke me in basketball, allow me to inform you: Leithart is brilliant. Secondly, he's not lazy, and not only has he written about as many books as I've read, but he reads a few thousand per week and never forgets a word of them. This is the only explanation. I think he's a vampire. Or at least the Count of Monte Cristo.

I distinctly remember one all-night study group that I had in which we, foolish delinquents that we were, walked past Leithart's office to go get coffee at midnight. He was sitting there instructing his computer on the finer points of supra vs. infralapsarianism and its effects upon the reconciliation of the soteriological and ecclesiological disparities in Augustin's De Trinitate and City of God (or playing minesweeper; it's really hard to say), and, when our study group finally realized that we had no hope of remembering which route was taken by Darius and which by Xerxes and had settled for the somewhat less productive task of drawing a fleet of planes bombing the very accurately detailed (hail Everardus) British Isles, we decided to go for a walk to clear our heads. This was about two am, and Leithart was still in his office, either in the running for the theological equivalent of the nobel prize or setting a new record for the "experienced" category. When we walked by his office again at four, he was still there, apparently unmoved, but wearing a different shirt and tie. He then led morning prayer at six-thirty, which was when I decided to give up on life and start taking my computer games more seriously.

Anyway, this book is by Leithart, which is a very good thing. However, even his tremendous ethos (think reputation) may not manage to drive so much as the title through the emotional antagonism that the vast majority of the church has toward Constantine. I had no such hesitation, as, on the one hand, I don't believe that Shakespeare is Shakespeare, or that AIDS is caused by an STD, or that our last president was stupid, or (no stoning me allowed) that our current one is evil, and on the other hand, I could easily believe that Leithart and Constantine were good friends back in the day, when Leithart was young and foolish, so I was eager to believe the best of Constantine. Plus he has an awesome name. However, I and my kiddie-pool enthusiasm weren't quite prepared for the tsunami of Leithart's nearly exhaustive knowledge of the subject. In some ways, this book reminded me of his Brazos commentary on 1 & 2 Kings, in which half of the book is spent interacting with other authors of differing opinions. There is no shortage of authors antagonistic toward Constantine, charging him with everything from brilliant and cynical statesmanship to being a rather dense tool of the devil to having extremely poor penmanship, and Leithart has to spend almost the entire book exhuming him so as to exonerate him before he got to the dessert: the last chapter: the baptism of the world.

I'll not even attempt to summarize in a book review what took a man such as Leithart an entire book to lay a foundation for, and forty pages to expound. Allow me to simply say this: I'm not actually as twitterpated about Leithart as I make myself out to be. I believe him to be tremendously brilliant, but there are actually several points upon which, I flatter myself, I disagree with him. Probably I don't even understand the issues that I disagree about, and lack the intelligence to comprehend, let alone defend my position, but so be it; I can only do what I can with what I was given, though I'm usually too busy eating kettle chips and reading Dilbert to do even that, so I operate on a different plane than men such as Leithart. However, this book was a sledgehammer. Had I loathed Leithart's very existence (which is impossible to do once you've met Smith, or at least heard him play piano), I still would have been thoroughly shaken. Had I ignored every argument that he made to lay the foundation for his final argument, I still would have been stunned by the breadth and the implications of it.

All of this to say that Leithart's Defending Constantine had a greater impact upon me than any other book I've read this year, and opened an entirely new way for me to view the world. It is a tremendous book, and very well worth the read.(less)

like · see review

Dec 14, 2010 Jason Clark rated it 5 of 5 stars

This review has been hidden because it contains spoilers. To view it, click here. Does Jesus as King affect our political and economic world?

Leithart: was supervised on his PHD by Milbank, makes interesting read to pick up that influence over social theory as theology etc.

Two strands of though about Constantine that is highlighted: pagan authors reflecting on Augustine soon after his death, then alter Voltaire, that historical argument that Constantine spoilt and controlled the church, with lots of misinformation in that suggestion, like Nicene Council parody etc (me: Stuart...more

like · see review

Jun 10, 2012 David Withun rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: history

Constantine the Great, the first Christian Roman emperor, has too long been a whipping boy of nearly anyone who needed a scapegoat to pin their misgivings about Christian history on -- from John Howard Yoder, to whose theories Leithart dedicates a good part of this book to refuting, to Dan Brown, with his godawful "Da Vinci Code," to the extreme conspiracy nuts like Acharya S and Peter Joseph, maker of "Zeitgeist, the Movie." Constantine has been the boogeyman of those with a historical bone to...more

1 like · like · see review

Apr 07, 2012 Tim rated it 5 of 5 stars

I read the Kindle version of this book. I am sold out to using Kindle, or some other e-book format for reading and writing book reviews, for the ease of referencing, and being able to highlight, and make notes that then become immediately searchable, and can easily cut and paste into book reviews and blog articles. So my references are Kindle locations, and not page numbers (my apologies to those with the Picard syndrome; those who must have a book in paper form).

An defense of Constantine the Gr...more

1 like · like · see review

Aug 07, 2011 Drick rated it 3 of 5 stars

Shelves: history, theological, political-thought

After reading my positive comments about Constantine's Sword by James Carroll, a colleague recommended this book as another perspective on the controversial character of Constantine and his negative effect on "true" Christianity. The author unfortunately tips his hand in his first statement, when he refers to Constantine as a "whipping boy," an unfortunate term that refers to African American slaves being beaten by their masters. What this revealed is that Leithart writes from a position of priv...more After reading my positive comments about Constantine's Sword by James Carroll, a colleague recommended this book as another perspective on the controversial character of Constantine and his negative effect on "true" Christianity. The author unfortunately tips his hand in his first statement, when he refers to Constantine as a "whipping boy," an unfortunate term that refers to African American slaves being beaten by their masters. What this revealed is that Leithart writes from a position of privilege and gives Constantine a pass on many of the abuses he admittedly committed by saying we have to see them "in context." Thus we are asked to see Constantine as a sincere Christian who sought to do his best in the time he lived and in his position as emperor, which constrained him to fight wars, brutalize enemies of the empire, and generally do what dominant oppressive rulers do. Leithart points to the fact that Constantine abolished sacrifice in the empire, built numerous churches and sought to rule his empire with "Christian" advisers. He never really takes up the charges laid against Constantine in terms of his brutality. Moreover, he defends Christians who flocked to Constantine because before him they were a persecuted minority of 10% to a dominant majority without taking up the charge that to be a Christian would have been politically advantageous given the change, and that perhaps their politics dictated their religion and not the other way around.

Leithart's true intention is to discredit the writings of John Howard Yoder, the most prominent theologian to accuse Constantine of symbolizing and enshrining the merger of piety and power that has plagued Western Civilization ever since Constantine. He claims Yoder has written bad history to underlie his theology. I will leave it to others to debate Liehtart's claims regardig history, but I must say it seemed awfully disingenuous to so thoroughly criticize a scholar who had been dead 13 years when Leithart blasted him. Kind of hard for Yoder to defend himself.

All in all it seemed a scholarly tome that had as its goal to defend the merger of religion and power that plagues our age, and not take seriously the criticism Yoder and others have made of that merger and the great damage it has caused.(less)

like · see review

Jan 23, 2011 Amy rated it 4 of 5 stars

I'm a fan of anything of Peter Leithart's and I try and read as many of his books as I can when they come out. He writes faster than I can read, though, and this last was a bit above my pay-grade. It was a very impressive book and not at all what I was expecting. I thought it was going to be a history of Constantine from a positive view point, but it was more a refutation of the negative view of Constantine propounded by someone named John Howard Yoder. It was a fascinating book and I'm very gla...more

1 like · like · see review

Jun 07, 2011 John Caneday rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: 2011

Constantine has a bad reputation in the West, as an emperor who expropriated church authority in an effort to augment his power, and later became the model for church/state relations that has tempted the church to seek greater earthly authority than Christ authorized.

Leithart examines the record and defends Constantine's place in history, and places Constantine well within orthodox Christianity. He acknowledges Constantine stumbled, but it seems clear that Constantine was a genuine Christian, wh...more

like · see review

Sep 15, 2011 Ian marked it as to-read

In the Edict of Toleration, Constantine did NOT ban paganism and he did NOT enshrine Christianity as the Imperial religion. His original edict simply demanded that people stop persecuting Christians and afford their clergy the same rights and priviliges as pagan priests. Likewise, while he did remove the priviliged status of Jews within the Empire, the oppression of the Jews actually took place under the reign of his successors. Most of what we know about Constantine is wrong, and I'm sorry that...more

like · see review

Jun 29, 2011 Fr. Ted rated it 4 of 5 stars

This book is more a 3-1/2 stars, but I think it is well written and he makes his points and offers good evidence to back up his claims. Constantine was influenced by Christianity and he certainly allows Christianity to influence the empire. The book is a major refutation of the many writings of John Howard Yoder (whom I have not read) who following his Anabaptist tradition basically sees all of church history from the immediate post-apostolic period to the time of the Anabaptists as fallen and c...more This book is more a 3-1/2 stars, but I think it is well written and he makes his points and offers good evidence to back up his claims. Constantine was influenced by Christianity and he certainly allows Christianity to influence the empire. The book is a major refutation of the many writings of John Howard Yoder (whom I have not read) who following his Anabaptist tradition basically sees all of church history from the immediate post-apostolic period to the time of the Anabaptists as fallen and corrupt. Leithart makes well reasoned claims with good supporting evidence that this type of reading of Church history is possible only if one ignores the known facts and follows one's ideology. The time of Contstantine was not an abrupt and sudden departure from the Gospel, but was an organic continuation of Christianity spreading its message in the world. Constantine represented a real change for Christianity - for the movement was no longer being persecuted but now had reached into the halls of secular power. This was a natural continuation of Christian missionary success. What happens when an absolute monarchical ruler encourages the teachings of the the Crucified Lord to be adopted throughout his empire? What unfolded was inspired by the Holy Spirit, but was also a test of how Christianity can be lived at all levels of society and throughout one society. Where I might part company with Leithart is what lessons should be learned in America where many want to say this is a Christian society. Constantine had no separation of church and state, and so gets judged harshly for ways in which Christianity may have failed to influence power. In America there is clear separation of church and state, and our leaders do not answer to any one vision of Christianity. Thus our leaders can with self stated "clear consciences" make all kinds of choices that include doing what cannot be defended in the Gospels and feel they don't have to be "Christian" consistently but can pick and choose when and how to apply the Gospel and defend themselves when they violate Christ's commandments completely. (less)

like · see review

Aug 30, 2011 Frode rated it 2 of 5 stars

Leithart's premise is that Constantine has come under a lot of bad press. I think he showed that such press was either misguided or just plain biased. Leithart gave much evidence that Constantine helped change Western civilization and Christendom for the better. I thought he spent overmuch time dealing with Constantine's critics, particularly John Howard Yoder. Yes, Yoder got some of it wrong, and Leithart ably points out Yoder's flaws, but at times the book seemed to be an anti-Yoder screed. Th...more

like · see review

Jul 15, 2010 W. Bradford Littlejohn rated it 5 of 5 stars

Yes, I know it's not out yet, but I got to index it! Mwuhahaha!

Vintage Leithart: brilliant stuff, extremely well-written, engaging and insightful on many different levels. Apparently there's nothing this man can't write on--literature, philosophy, hermeneutics, and now history. He manages to be a compelling storyteller while neither losing sight of the polemical point nor letting it overwhelm the narrative.

The final chapter, which is as it were an expanded and refined version of chapter 5 of Ag...more

2 likes · like · see review

Apr 30, 2013 Eddy Allen rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: arts-and-historical

We know that Constantine issued the Edict of Milan in 313 outlawed paganism and made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire manipulated the Council of Nicea in 325 exercised absolute authority over the church, co-opting it for the aims of empire And if Constantine the emperor were not problem enough, we all know that Constantinianism has been very bad for the church. Or do we know these things? Peter Leithart weighs these claims and finds them wanting. And what's more, in focusin...more

like · see review

Feb 18, 2013 Andrew rated it 4 of 5 stars

Constantine is the object of a great deal of criticism - and it has a long unjustified history. Not only are crank novelists like Dan Brown inwardly terrorized by the thought of a Christian emperor (as are former Catholics like popular historian James Carroll), but influential Protestant theologians whose thought and work are - regardless - very important. Leithart goes after one of the most influential in our day, John Howard Yoder, whom he believes does a profound disservice to the true histor...more

like · see review

Aug 31, 2011 Miss Pickwickian rated it 4 of 5 stars

"Defending Constantine" is organized somewhat like a backwards "Against Christianity." The first portion sorts through history and what accounts we have of the times of the early church, before, after, and during the reign of Constantine.

The entire book is theologically grounded and continually shows the tension and relation of Church and State. Many portions read like an essay or thesis against writers and thinkers like John Howard Yoder. Other sections are simply history with thoughts from an...more

like · see review

Feb 02, 2011 Eric rated it 5 of 5 stars

Well this is probably a book that all Mennonites should read or anyone else that likes to decry the fall of the pure early church into "Christendom". I'll let you know.
Ok. This book was really fantastic. Not because Leithart is correct on all accounts but because he is so close to being right on many accounts. He truly calls those who have major issues with Constantine and that chimera "Constantinianism" to do history. Theories on the fall of the church must reckon with the very messy and diffe...more Well this is probably a book that all Mennonites should read or anyone else that likes to decry the fall of the pure early church into "Christendom". I'll let you know.
Ok. This book was really fantastic. Not because Leithart is correct on all accounts but because he is so close to being right on many accounts. He truly calls those who have major issues with Constantine and that chimera "Constantinianism" to do history. Theories on the fall of the church must reckon with the very messy and different concrete realities of the first few centuries after Christ. He writes passionately to see Constantine as a complex and very fallible human character in the drama of the fourth century. That in itself is enough to reccomend the book. However, for those of Anabaptist heritage who seek to conform their lives to the person of Jesus and his church, than the most important thing that Leithart does in this book is to spur us on the deeper understanding of our confessed pacifism and of our patron saint John Howard Yoder. For it is Yoder that Leithart truly has his sights set on in this book. it is a measure of how important Yoder's writings are that a Reformed scholar such as Leithart has taken such great pains to interact and disagree with. For someone like me who has read little of Yoder himself, but much by those influenced by him, reading this book is an impetus to go back to the original sources and read Yoder himself. For those of us that seek to shape our lives around the person and cross of Christ this book is I think essential to point us back to the concreteness of the past, to a non idealized conception of the "pure" early church and the "fall" of the church. This book may prove to be invaluable for us. I urge you all to read it. Be patient, the first 250 odd pages are a deep historical portrait of what we can learn of Constantine. There is a substantial pay off if you persevere to the end. I would deeply like to discuss this book with others. Let me know.
I would also point you to these online sources for some discussion that has already taken place: http://erb.kingdomnow.org/featured-a-..., and http://www.faqs.org/periodicals/20101....
Thanks everyone.

Eric(less)

1 like · like · see review

Jun 26, 2011 Douglas Hayes rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: bible-theology, christian-mission, historical-biography-or-autobiograp, philosophy-social-commentary, political-economics

Christians today know that something has changed in our relation to the world in the last couple of centuries. We know that we no longer are in a position of leadership or even broad influence in the broader culture. But we are torn as to why this is true, or even if this is a good or bad thing. Is it even a part of our mission as the Church to lead culture in an explicitly Christian manner, or has Christ instructed us to be content with being a sub-culture within a culture?

Peter Leithart’s, Def...more Christians today know that something has changed in our relation to the world in the last couple of centuries. We know that we no longer are in a position of leadership or even broad influence in the broader culture. But we are torn as to why this is true, or even if this is a good or bad thing. Is it even a part of our mission as the Church to lead culture in an explicitly Christian manner, or has Christ instructed us to be content with being a sub-culture within a culture?

Peter Leithart’s, Defending Constantine: The Twilight of an Empire and the Dawn of Christendom, is an attempt to address these questions in a manner that takes seriously the Great Commission, the history of the last two thousand years, and the ongoing theological reflections of various Christian thinkers on the subject.

Since Constantine was the first (in a long line) Christian ruler that tried to rule as a Christian, historians, theologians, political philosophers and social scientists begin with him. Among most academics today (both Christian and otherwise), Constantine has become an almost iconic symbol of all that has been wrong about Christian involvement and leadership society, and is now associated with what is called “Constantiniansm.” Leithart’s aim is to not only provide a fresh look at Constantine in his historical context (biography), but to present a polemic to the prevailing negative attitude toward Constantine and the Christendom that follow in next thousand years (and into the modern period). One of his aims is to “contribute to the formation of a theology that does not simply inform but is a social science.” His final and most important purpose is very practical: “I have found that, far from representing a fall for the church, Constantine provides in many respects a model for Christian political practice” [and general cultural engagement by Christians].

One of the fascinating things that Leithart demonstrates is that the ancient world, from beginning to end, was bound up with sacrifice (both animal and human). With Constantine, the world was forced to come to grips with the Gospel (i.e. good news) of Christ and the implications of the finality of His self-sacrifice. Only the sacrifice of Christ and our participation in that sacrifice can free the world of the tyranny of paganism.

I’m not one to read the end before the beginning – but I can, in good conscience, recommend that people may want to read the last two chapters first so as to be assured of the value of reading such a careful and academic work. For, indeed, the journey through Defending Constantine is well worth the time and effort it is to get to the end.

Of note is the fact that one of those whom Leithart takes to task in the book, Stanley Hauerwas, has written a very positive review of Defending Constantine. Hauerwas wrote:
“Leithart has written an important book that does more than help us to better understand the complex human being who bore the name Constantine…Leithart has done his historical homework. As far as I can judge, he uses the best scholarship available to develop an engaging biography of Constantine as emperor and human being…I am primarily interested in Leithart's primary interest- which is to provide a critique of Yoder in the hope that Christians will recognize that they have a more robust political theology than Yoder could provide.”
The review is available here: http://www.faqs.org/periodicals/20101...

I cannot possibly recommend this book too highly. It is a must read for anyone serious about Church history, the theology of Christian mission and involvement in society.
(less)

like · see review

Feb 25, 2012 Adam Ross rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: church-history, church-and-culture, history, theology

It is common in Christian circles today to find the fault of the Church’s many ills and problems today set squarely on the shoulders of Constantine the Great, the first Christian emperor of Rome. He manipulated the support of the Church to his own advantage, to consolidate his own power. He controlled the outcome of the Nicene council the way he wanted; he set the stage for the Church’s subservience to secular government power in later periods.

Biblical scholar and Church historian Peter J. Leith...more It is common in Christian circles today to find the fault of the Church’s many ills and problems today set squarely on the shoulders of Constantine the Great, the first Christian emperor of Rome. He manipulated the support of the Church to his own advantage, to consolidate his own power. He controlled the outcome of the Nicene council the way he wanted; he set the stage for the Church’s subservience to secular government power in later periods.

Biblical scholar and Church historian Peter J. Leithart would like a moment to challenge everything we thought we knew about Constantine, about Church and Empire, and about the history of the Church. What if Constantine was a devout, but simple, Christian convert? What if the Edict of Milan – which legalized the Christian religion and outlawed its persecution – also granted tolerance of pagan religions? What if Constantine’s legislation was oriented around Christian ideals and principles, supporting the poor and oppressed, loosening the slavery laws, breaking the corruption of the courts that gave no justice to the poor, outlawed the gladitorial arenas and forbade the exposure of infants (the Roman equivalent of abortion)? What if Constantine did not control the council of Nicea or its outcome, but simply sponsored it because he believed in Church unity, and actually submitted to its rulings (and the rulings of the other councils of the period) once rendered? What if, at the very end of his life when he was finally baptized, after he had done all of this, he believed that his work had been only on the fringe of Christian obedience and swore “from thence onward” to actually live as a Christian?

In short, what if Constantine is precisely what many modern Christians want to be; missional, intentional, culture-building, forward-looking, protector of the poor and weak, oppressed and downtrodden, defender of the weak?

With all of the historical qualifications necessary to present a balanced sketch (yes, Constantine did persecute pagans occasionally; yes, he may have killed his wife and son-in-law for sleeping together; yes, he was a skilled politician), Leithart is able to present a balanced portrait of Christendom’s first Emperor. I have drawn certain emphases from Leithart’s book above in order to strongly contrast it with the common view to make a point. Leithart’s picture is far more nuanced, preferring not to present Constantine as either sinner or saint, but rather as the man he was. The job is well done, and you emerge from the book with a clearer picture of the sort of man Constantine really was. In Leithart’s words,

Constantine was a soldier, and a great one. He rarely lost a skirmish and never lost a war. He was not an ignorant grunt. Educated in Diocletian’s court, he retained an interest in theology, philosophy, and literature throughout his life, his dabbling that of a competent amateur. A man of high moral standards, of which he was somewhat vain, sometimes a bit of a prig, he expected everyone else to live up to his expectations. He liked to see the big picture and could be impatient with details. He had a strong sense of justice, and when aroused by what he believed unjust, he could be imperious, brutal, hectoring. He was aggressive and ambitious but was a stratagist with the self-restraint to wait out an opponent. When the situation called for it, he knew how to politick, compromise and build consensus. He had a sense of symbol and ceremony, knew the right gesture. He enjoyed the kitschy gaudiness of court and its adornments; the flowered robe rested easily on his shoulders, he liked his jeweled slippers, and he did not think a golden throne too much. But he also knew that he should treat it with disdain, and that disdain was sincere too. (p. 301)

At the same time, all the evidence points to Constantine being a genuine convert to the Christian faith. He meditated and lectured on theology, wrote letters to bishops on the fine points of doctrine, tried to reconcile the great heretic Arius with the rest of the Church, took both private and public opportunities to speak of the Christian religion. He supported its growth, submitted to its councils and its rulings, and above all desired its ecumenical unity – he desired universal agreement on the broad strokes of theology; hence the calling of the first council of Nicea, where the Christian Scriptures in use by the Church at the time were confirmed in the number and order of books as we have them today, and which defined forever more the “bounds of orthodoxy” with the famous (and glorious) Nicene Creed – which most churches over the whole world still recite with one voice in public worship.

On Constantine’s Christian faith, Leithart writes that after 312,

Constantine used his imperial power to protect and support the Christian church. He was a sincere if somewhat simple believer. He knew portions of the Old Testament and perhaps the basic outline of biblical history, and he could summarize the story of the Gospels. For Constantine, God was a providential Judge who supports the righteous and destroys the wicked, and he believed that the church had to be unified if it was going to offer pleasing worship to God. … He did not adopt a police of forced conversion, did not punish pagans for being pagans or Jews for being Jews. Pagans remained at his court and were given wealthy responsibilities in the empire. … Constantine expended an enormous amount of treasure on churches; it was used both on buildings and, with the emperor’s explicit encouragement, on establishing ministries of mercy to the poor, sick and widows. … He attended some of the councils and contributed to discussions but did not chair any council or determine the outcome. Once the bishops had arrived at a decision, Constantine accepted it a a divine word and backed up conciliar decisions with legal sanctions, mainly exile for those found guilty of heresy. … over the long run Constantine’s support of the church strengthened the church’s status as an alternative society and polity within the Roman Empire. Already during Constantine’s lifetime, and even more during the reign of his sons, church leaders became more aggressively confrontational toward the empire, fighting to protect the church’s independence from imperial intrusions. (pp. 302, 303, 304,)

Leithart’s scholarship is impeccable and staggeringly vast, assembling an expansive bibliography (pp. 343-366) which is oriented towards not simply Constantine and his life, but the lives of those around him, as well as the context and all avenues of Roman life to provide the fullest portrait possible. He begins the book with two large chapters of the bloody exploits of Constantine’s immediate predecessors to set the stage, chapters which are slow going but which prove necessary to what comes later.

Apart from the first two chapters, the book is never a dull read. The skill with which Leithart writes, the comprehensive nature of his knowledge of the period, does not detract from the story that he is telling. The truly remarkable thing is how ably he avoids sacrificing scholarship or storytelling. Part biography, part commentary, it walks a line few other historical works can. As unusual as it may sound, there were no drawbacks to the book that I could find, beyond the slogging nature of those two opening chapters. Leithart covers all the bases, checks all the sources, deals with all the objections. So I’ll simply finish by saying this is a fine book which will set the standard on Constantine and Christendom for a long time to come. Anyone interested in the Church, in history, in Constantine, anyone who thought they knew the story, needs to read it.(less)

2 likes · like · see review

Nov 28, 2010 Rick Davis rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: bible-theology, history-biography

Defending Constantine is a phenomenal new book by Peter Leithart that seeks to rehabilitate the reputation of the first Christian emperor of Rome. It seems that Constantine, by converting to the Christian faith, permanently securing Christians against persecution, financing new churches, appointing Christians to the highest levels of government, and allowing bishops to hear civil complaints, made himself one of the most debated characters in Church history. Starting with St. Francis of Assisi, w...more Defending Constantine is a phenomenal new book by Peter Leithart that seeks to rehabilitate the reputation of the first Christian emperor of Rome. It seems that Constantine, by converting to the Christian faith, permanently securing Christians against persecution, financing new churches, appointing Christians to the highest levels of government, and allowing bishops to hear civil complaints, made himself one of the most debated characters in Church history. Starting with St. Francis of Assisi, who believed that it was wrong for Constantine to tempt the Church with worldly power, and continuing especially through the Reformers and into the modern era, Constantine has had a bad rap. The validity of his conversion has been questioned, and the results of his policies have been harshly criticized. In this book, partly biography and partly theology, Leithart specifically focuses on the challenge to “Constantinism” brought by John Howard Yoder and his current theological descendents.

This book is probably not for everyone. It is closely reasoned and heavily footnoted, and thus requires time to digest and work through. It is very well-written and engaging, and I appreciate the fact that Leithart avoids any sort of sweeping generalizations. History is complicated, and he is determined to bring as many of the particular facts as possible to the table for discussion. There are at least two distinct groups of Christians that I believe need to read this book.

First of all, most Protestants who are thoughtful about their faith and interested in Church history ought to read this book. Protestants by and large, whether descended from Luther and Calvin or from the Anabaptists, have a “fall” view of Church history. The idea is that the apostolic and early Church was a “pure” Church, and at some point, the Church fell away from faithfulness and from the gospel only to be restored when this or that man came along more than a millennium later to call everyone back to the mythical golden age of the Church. Many will trace this “fall” of the Church to around the time of Constantine, when the Church absorbed pagan culture and religion, and became corrupted as part of the Roman state. Leithart does a great job of exploding this myth in his discussion of the Church prior to, during the time of, and after Constantine.

Secondly, Christians who are involved in politics or would like to be involved in politics ought to read this book. Many Christians today have bought into the idea that the political realm is atheological and that Jesus has nothing to say to power. Christian must be willing to take their place at the table and argue for policies that uphold a neutral “public space,” which is devoid of any specific theological content. Furthermore, Christians who reject this myth of neutrality are often seen as dangerous theonomists who would bring about a reign of terror and intolerance if they ever gained political power. However, in Constantine, Dr. Leithart finds a third way. Constantine effectively through his policies ended sacrifice in Rome and Christianized the public square. Leithart uses the term “concord” for this policy. Concord though disapproving of idolatry forbears to sanction against other religions or practices. This is not the same as our postmodern idea that all ideas are equal. Rather the disapproval of a certain view is assumed, but for specific convictions about the nature of man (namely that religion must be freely chosen) and the limits of the power of the state this disapproval does not manifest itself in violence or legal sanctions. Finally, this policy “expects that by treating its dissenters with forbearance it is creating conditions under which they will ultimately change their behavior to conform to what the state accepts.”

From beginning to end Defending Constantine is packed with insights about the fourth century Church and empire. My favorite chapters however, come near the end, and discuss the relationship of the early Church to the military and empire. I encourage those who fall into the two categories above or those who are simply interested in the history of God’s people to read Defending Constantine by Peter Leithart.
(less)

1 like · like · see review

Aug 03, 2011 Chris Comis rated it 4 of 5 stars

Shelves: his-story, ecclesia-reformanda, theology

Very important work on both the man and the myth. Couldn't recommend it more highly. I would've given it five stars, but I try to reserve that for books that are not only brilliant, but also surprisingly brilliant. And for Leithart, this was pretty much run-of-the-mill brilliance. But for the rest of us that means uberman-brilliance.

I think Leithart might be the Constantine of modern day scholarship (and not just Christian scholarship, either).

like · see review

Jul 12, 2011 Jackson rated it 4 of 5 stars

Finally, an account of Constantine that attempts to take history seriously. Leithart is an able historian and theologian and writes his work against such theologians as Yoder and Hauerwas whose accounts of a Constantinian fall in the fourth century are based on shoddy historical work. Leithart, rather, gets into the fourth century and presents a sympathetic portrait of Constantine and a positive influence on Christianity.

like · see review

Aug 09, 2011 Alex rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: 2011-read, az-book-club

This book provides a sympathetic perspective on the Emperor Constantine. He did some really bad things, but he was a dramatic improvement over prior emperors. Constantine affected positive impacts on people's lives throughout history, moreso than we can probably realize. Leithart's final chapter includes a moving breakdown on what the Sermon on the Mount would look like applied to 21st Century politics. We're so far from where we need to be.

like · see review

May 19, 2013 Peter rated it 3 of 5 stars

Great book. I gave it three stars only because the topic wasn't as interesting to me. Leithart is a great reader and it is clear that he has done his research. Other reviews of this book have noted that he relies heavily on secondary sources, which is true, but unless one wants to be a specialist and write on only one topic, relying on secondary sources is necessary. The last couple chapters are particularly good, especially when Leithart moves from history to theology. Leithart has made his cas...more

1 like · like · see review

Feb 06, 2013 Ricardo Lowe rated it 4 of 5 stars

Excellent read. I read this book hoping to get a more contextual understanding of emperor Constantine relative to time of his reign and I got exactly that.

The history of and switching of roles and power in Roman society between Pagans and Christians was shocking.

like · see review

Feb 10, 2012 Michael Jones rated it 4 of 5 stars

the great thing about this book is that it is quite scholarly and interacts with other writings on the subject and has excellent footnotes and quotes from the third and fourth century. This is not easy recreational reading but very good for historical understanding.

like · see review

Oct 15, 2011 Andrew Boyle rated it 5 of 5 stars

What a great read! The final chapters really soar as Leithart puts forward his own political theology. The historical elements are very engaging as well. A very relevant contribution to current discussion in political theology about pacifism and empire.

like · see review

Mar 17, 2013 Joe Rigney rated it 5 of 5 stars

Shelves: history, theology

Leithart does a fantastic job placing Constantine in his own era and helping us understand the first Christian emperor. The final chapters have a great discussion of political theology, with Leithart dialoguing with Yoder.

like · see review

May 03, 2013 Jacob rated it 4 of 5 stars

Overall a great book. Packed with a lot of information and concepts, the book was still readable and not too academic. Towards the end of the book it felt like the focus was on discrediting Yoder, which I think served a purpose but was a little drawn out. We get it Leithart, you think he was wrong.

like · see review

title link	preview: Defending Constantine: The Twilight of an Empire and the Dawn of Christendom
avg rating	preview: Defending Constantine: The Twilight of an Empire and the Dawn of Christendom Goodreads rating: 4.20 (157 ratings)
small image	preview: click here [close]
med image	preview: click here [close]
BBCode	[url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8585219-defending-constantine?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book][img]http://d.gr-assets.com/books/1348652311l/8585219.jpg[/img][/url] [url=http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8585219-defending-constantine?utm_medium=api&utm_source=blog_book]Defending Constantine: The Twilight of an Empire and the Dawn of Christendom by Peter J. Leithart[/url]

Defending Constantine: The Twilight of an Empire and the Dawn of Christendom

Friend Reviews

Lists with This Book

Community Reviews

new topic
Discuss This Book

combine
Other Editions (1)

Genres

Readers also enjoyed similar books

About Peter J. Leithart

Books by Peter J. Leithart

Share This Book

Share This Book on Your Website

Trivia About Defending Constan...