Skip to content
The Historic Faith
Sign in
All Questions
Question 5
The lesson emphasizes that the church spread rapidly “without the backing of the state,” and later shows how state involvement under Constantine intoxicated the church. What does that contrast reveal about God’s purposes and methods for advancing the gospel, and what modern Christian instincts does it confront about influence, political protection, or cultural power?
Another way to ask: What do we learn when we compare the early church growing without government help to the later church being changed by Constantine’s support? What modern habits does this challenge about seeking political power, protection, or cultural influence?

Direct Answer Dean’s contrast suggests the gospel advanced powerfully through early Christian witness without state support, but state favor later tempted the church toward luxury, prestige, and a redefined Christianity. This confronts the instinct to treat political protection or cultural influence as the main way God grows the church.

Support from Transcript:

  • He calls it “remarkable” that Christianity spread “without… modern conveniences… without the backing of the state.”
  • He later describes Constantine’s favor as intoxicating: Christians moved from persecution to “gold robes… eating with the emperor,” and some claimed “this truly must be the new millennium.”
  • Constantine “didn’t get converted himself” yet “legalize[d] Christianity,” showing state support isn’t the same as spiritual reality.
  • Tolstoy’s quoted critique portrays a Christianity “arranged” so Constantine could “continue to live his old heathen life unembarrassed.”
  • Dean treats this era as marking “the end of antiquity” because something essential shifted.
Discussion Follow-ups Where do we subtly equate “winning” with gospel success (laws, cultural acceptance, access to leaders)? What might faithfulness look like if we assume God doesn’t need state backing to build His church?

Jumpstarter 5 of 10
Back Questions Next