In this article, Brookes contends that the conversion of Emperor Constantine was not a triumph of the purist sainthood kind of Christianity. It however, should not be demonized. It worked for the good of the Church and its mission of human goodness. At the core of Brookes’ argument is that the denigration of the secular or establishment is not going to fulfil the Church’s mission.
Constantine is an example of a Christian follower who abides by Christian teachings and mores but is not as fervent in their approach to the Church. Constantine’s Church worked in many ways to reduce the burdens of slavery in the Roman society. This is a sign that even though Constantine did not get baptized until he was on his deathbed, it did not make him less of a Christian. Secular or Establishment people are important to the advancement of the Christian doctrine. Individuals who object to secularism in the Church are bound to create a new establishment that mirror the extremes observed in politics like the rise of Bolshevism in Russia.
Brooke argues that “the idea of a Church of Saints is irresistibly attractive, but it has never been thoroughly worked out”. He seeks a balance between radical reform and measured response to the problems that affect the church. He observes that “no Church can be perfect” and asking for perfection of spirituality is bound to fracture rather than build the church.
The conversion of individuals like King Ethelbert of Kent and Khama of Botswana shows that embracing the establishment is advantageous for the Church. These are the kind of individuals who are not saints and “the very casting out of those who are not saints breeds an insufferable self-righteousness and self-satisfaction in those who are - or claim to be - saints”.
Bibliography
Brookes, E. H.“The Conversion of Constantine and the Establishment.” Theoria: A Journal of
Social and Political Theory 35 (1970),
