Defending Constantine

Peter Leithart's Defending Constantine emerges from a specific scholarly debate within contemporary Christian thought about the relationship between Christianity and political power. Writing against what he sees as a false narrative that has dominated both liberal and Anabaptist critiques, Leithart challenges the widespread assumption that Constantine's conversion and the subsequent Christianization of the Roman Empire represented a fundamental corruption of authentic Christianity. His work directly engages critics like John Howard Yoder and Stanley Hauerwas who argue that Constantinian Christianity abandoned the church's prophetic witness in favor of worldly compromise.

Leithart's central argument is that the standard account of Constantine's impact rests on historical distortions and theological misconceptions. He contends that Constantine's conversion was genuine and that his political reforms, rather than corrupting Christianity, actually extended Christian principles into the public sphere in ways that were both legitimate and beneficial. Leithart argues that the pre-Constantinian church was never as politically withdrawn as modern critics suggest, and that Constantine's reign represented continuity with, rather than departure from, earlier Christian engagement with worldly authority. He reframes what critics call "Constantinianism" as a necessary and proper Christian response to political responsibility, arguing that the church's calling includes the transformation of temporal institutions rather than withdrawal from them.

The book has continued to generate discussion among theologians, historians, and political theorists grappling with questions of Christianity's proper relationship to state power and cultural influence. Leithart's challenge to the dominant narrative has forced both critics and defenders of Constantinian Christianity to reconsider their historical and theological assumptions about the fourth-century transformation of the church.

Who should read this: Theologians and students interested in political theology, church history, and debates about Christianity's relationship to power will find Leithart's argument essential, though readers committed to pacifist or Anabaptist traditions may find his case unconvincing rather than merely challenging.