We need to order our minds, such that we can see how both:
1) God could ordain many possible avenues to achieve his ends, some which would be "ideal;" that is, they might have miraculous provision (meaning more than providential alignments with various natural aids), or they might cut through untold distractions and potential contests to easily arrive at that key to unlock a theological conundrum. And he might do it precisely while helping the church to avoid worldly "entanglements" entirely.
2) God apparently has chosen to find his determinate ends through the messy mechanics of human history. What God might have done otherwise, as a kind of demonstration of his preference for church labors that stand quite outside of ecclesiastic alliances with covenant-breakers (speaking of them in national solidarity as they stand related to the Covenant of Works), he has not done. Instead, he continues in this age to do what he did in the last, namely to use even those imperfect attempts--be they sinful as such, or mistaken, or just constrained in the moment--to rely on God through secular power surrounding the church, nevertheless to get him his victory one increment of growth (Dan.2:35) at a time.
We don't have to approve unreservedly any aspect of Constantine's contribution, to also admit that it was an instrument of sustaining the church and adding to its mature development and expansion. Nor must we disapprove of every aspect of Constantine's contribution, to be able to say that there was more or less significant defection from a pure ideal of church-state relations.
We can neither roundly condemn the first and great official state recognition of the church, or anything further as it came in one form or another in different places and times thereafter; nor can we unerringly praise it. Unless God had continued and even expanded the miracles of the foundational era of the NT age, we are left to expression of thanksgiving for the providential logistical assistance, and then official promotion of the decrees of Nicaea I.
We do so in the manner of Israel thanking God for the decree of Cyrus permitting them return to the land; or thanking Xerxes (as apt polite admission) for amending his murderous decree against the chosen people, by further permitting them to defend themselves and giving them the natural means. We don't necessarily approve ideally of the lack of Jewish independence in those circumstances, or even that Esther the Jewess was wed to a heathen king. As Mordecai himself stated (Est.4:14), God was able--and he certainly would--defend his people (and his promise) in some manner. The manner he chose also does service to our theological understanding.
I personally don't think that gaining the standing the church did around the time of Constantine is interpretable as a certain kind of progress, a step toward "inevitable" creation of glorious Christendom, and that one which God approves as an earthly apotheosis of his dominion manifested in history. I am convinced by now there is no reasonable expectation of such (not vitiated by too many defects to count) before the arrival of the eschatological kingdom fulfilled. I know others are convinced of alternate outcomes; and I see that those convictions can lead to particular interpretations of Constantine; but I reject them, both the progressive and the destructive.
1) God could ordain many possible avenues to achieve his ends, some which would be "ideal;" that is, they might have miraculous provision (meaning more than providential alignments with various natural aids), or they might cut through untold distractions and potential contests to easily arrive at that key to unlock a theological conundrum. And he might do it precisely while helping the church to avoid worldly "entanglements" entirely.
2) God apparently has chosen to find his determinate ends through the messy mechanics of human history. What God might have done otherwise, as a kind of demonstration of his preference for church labors that stand quite outside of ecclesiastic alliances with covenant-breakers (speaking of them in national solidarity as they stand related to the Covenant of Works), he has not done. Instead, he continues in this age to do what he did in the last, namely to use even those imperfect attempts--be they sinful as such, or mistaken, or just constrained in the moment--to rely on God through secular power surrounding the church, nevertheless to get him his victory one increment of growth (Dan.2:35) at a time.
We don't have to approve unreservedly any aspect of Constantine's contribution, to also admit that it was an instrument of sustaining the church and adding to its mature development and expansion. Nor must we disapprove of every aspect of Constantine's contribution, to be able to say that there was more or less significant defection from a pure ideal of church-state relations.
We can neither roundly condemn the first and great official state recognition of the church, or anything further as it came in one form or another in different places and times thereafter; nor can we unerringly praise it. Unless God had continued and even expanded the miracles of the foundational era of the NT age, we are left to expression of thanksgiving for the providential logistical assistance, and then official promotion of the decrees of Nicaea I.
We do so in the manner of Israel thanking God for the decree of Cyrus permitting them return to the land; or thanking Xerxes (as apt polite admission) for amending his murderous decree against the chosen people, by further permitting them to defend themselves and giving them the natural means. We don't necessarily approve ideally of the lack of Jewish independence in those circumstances, or even that Esther the Jewess was wed to a heathen king. As Mordecai himself stated (Est.4:14), God was able--and he certainly would--defend his people (and his promise) in some manner. The manner he chose also does service to our theological understanding.
I personally don't think that gaining the standing the church did around the time of Constantine is interpretable as a certain kind of progress, a step toward "inevitable" creation of glorious Christendom, and that one which God approves as an earthly apotheosis of his dominion manifested in history. I am convinced by now there is no reasonable expectation of such (not vitiated by too many defects to count) before the arrival of the eschatological kingdom fulfilled. I know others are convinced of alternate outcomes; and I see that those convictions can lead to particular interpretations of Constantine; but I reject them, both the progressive and the destructive.