Go home!



NOTE: This is a fan page.
Dr. Leithart does not have a Facebook account.

RECENT ENTRIES
-In defense of Nevin
-Too catholic to be Catholic
-Sermon notes
-Structure in Isaiah 37
-Coat of Plants
-Wedding charge
-Bodies and Christ’s Body
-Triumph of the Performative
-Divine excess
-Bodies transformed
-Naos
-What’s the Bible For?
-Power of Sacraments
-Mystical Presence
-Converts
-Pastoral loneliness
-Overcoming Epistemology
-Hezekiah in Isaiah
-Sermon notes
-Structure in Isaiah 36
CATEGORY ARCHIVES
    • LINKS
    - Biblical Horizons
    - Covenant Worldview Institute
    - Theologia
    FEED

    CONTACT

    Comments:
    leithart@leithart.com

    Problems:
    webmaster@leithart.com





    |
    |

    History: Non-Constantinian Shift?

    [Print] | [PDF] | [Email]

    If, as Yoder claims, the “Constantinian” compromise of the church with the world begins in the second and third centuries; if it begins when Christianity is still an illicit religion, persecuted periodically but savagely; if it begins when the church is still populated by martyrs – is it still a Constantinian shift?  That is, is the shift attributable to the church becoming legal, official, the majority religion, the religion of the empire?  

    Evidently not.  Whatever shift there was in the second and third centuries, it has other sources and is evidence (as Gerald Schlabach has suggested) of more general problems of Christian faithfulness rather of the mainstreaming of the church.

    Yoder’s acknowledgement that the church was becoming Constantinian before Constantine is not a qualification of his thesis.  It undermines his thesis.

    posted by Peter J. Leithart on Thursday, May 7, 2009 at 7:09 am