The Anabaptist Straw Man

https://adfontesjournal.com/andrew-koperski/christians-in-the-employ-of-the-pagan-empire/

In many ways the linked article simply repeats and rehashes many of the same old arguments used against those who argue for Kingdom ethics in the Early Church – and the narrative of their subsequent corruption. The line of reasoning followed by Koperski is in keeping with the arguments and the muddying of the waters tactics used by the likes of Peter Leithart.

Yes, there were Christians in the military before Constantine. This is well established. It's clear that by the late second century a lot of confusion and error was at work. No one denies this.

Enlisting in the legions was often a twenty year commitment. There was no getting out or getting a discharge. Thus when soldiers converted they were in a dilemma. Most of the time the legions built bridges and roads and such labours were permissible. And yet if called upon to fight and kill, the Christian soldier had to refuse and suffer the penalty. He could flee and live as a fugitive in the underground, or face the penalty. Rights and the assumptions that go with them had nothing to do with it.

It was one thing for someone to convert and find themselves in a situation not easily reconciled or resolved, but Christians who went and joined the legions were subject to excommunication and rightly so. The same should be true today. They were guilty of bringing themselves into bondage and signing on with a force that (in the end) is based on a set of ethics antithetical to the New Testament.

And something needs to be said – Eusebius is a court historian and there are problems with his accounts and his glorification of Constantine. Shouldn't this also be taken into account?

Koperski ignores the fact that immediately after the Edict of Milan the Synod of Arles (in 314) condemned conscientious objection. The shift was already underway.

As stated, the problem in many cases is the framing. For Koperski it's a case of either/or – either it's wrong to work for the state or it's okay.

That's not how the New Testament approaches such questions and this is also true when it comes to social evils like slavery. Paul is not trying to transform society, nor does he expect Christians to entangle themselves with the state in order to do good to neighbour or some such.

He's not trying to change the state. He doesn't condemn it per se but he does contrast it with the Christian calling (Romans 12-13). But his non-condemnation (and admission of Providential role) is not the same as endorsement.

We are to be Christians in whatever capacity we are called. If one is a judge, soldier, or slave – be a Christian. The general expectation is one of opposition and persecution. Indeed we are told to take up the cross. There is no expectation of Christian flourishing in these spheres (as it were). Bear witness to the glory of God and if that means dismissal or punishment or death – God be praised.

Obviously the advocates of Dominionism and for that matter the entire Evangelical sphere have no interest in this teaching. It flies in the face of the misguided agenda they have embraced.

We're told there is a world 'outside' and we are to lead quiet lives, minding our own business and not getting entangled with the world. Because more contemporary Christians downplay or are ignorant of the celestial aspect (and warfare) of our calling, they view such Christian living as retreatist and impotent. It is nothing of the kind. It reminds me of those who suggest prayer as a kind of last resort or something to be pursued in the face of hopeless circumstance.

And since they (in misunderstanding the nature of the Kingdom) seek power, the idea of suffering and cross bearing is unattractive and even foolish. They are not terribly interested in the kind of cross bearing Christian-cultural interaction Paul calls us to.

As such, these histories are subject to manipulation by means of theological interpretation. But it's not a theology derived from the New Testament but one that assumes the post-Constantinian ideological framework.

No one has ever suggested that the Church pre-Constantine was wholly pure or that there weren't Christians in the army or the state. Indeed, there were many bad seeds sown in the lead-up to Constantine – that made such a shift possible. And again, the fact that there is no explicit record of the shift is meaningless. We know countless records were destroyed by the later Catholic Church that was hostile to dissent. Additionally it was an apostasy – a Great Apostasy, meaning that the vast majority of people went for it. It was a tragedy that resulted in a massive and existential shift in values. The Church largely abandoned New Testament teachings about money, power, violence, and the nature of the world. And sadly, the Magisterial Reformation did almost nothing to remedy this but in many cases reinforced these errors.

The Catholic Church always retained some tensions within it – some factions that represented a kind of protest against the norm. There is little testimony of this within Magisterial and Confessional Protestantism. In that respect it represents an even further departure from New Testament norms. The only exceptions to this are found among some of the sects associated with Pietism.

Koperski accuses his opponents (whom he slanderously calls Anabaptists) with oversimplifying the situation in the Early Church. Anabaptist has rather negative connotations within the context of Confessional Protestantism and there are many non-Anabaptists such as myself that also condemn Constantine and all that he represented.

It would seem that Koperski resents those who paint with a broad brush. Ironically that is the very thing he's doing here. He's battling a straw man in the form of a hypothetical Anabaptist.

The situation is complicated but that doesn't endorse what became the norm after Constantine – nor does it justify it vis-à-vis the New Testament and the earliest post-apostolic testimonies. The tale of the Early Church is one of persecution but also one of compromise and decline. Church History has its bright spots and yet even these are often of a mixed nature. The same is no less true when it comes to the Magisterial Reformation. It unleashed many evils and created as many problems as it hoped to solve. It didn't surprise me to discover that Koperski is plugged into Dominionist pipeline, from Hillsdale College to The Davenant Institute – institutions committed to the mythology of Christendom and hostile to the New Testament.