Deconstructive Theology and the Emergent Church

The planners of the 2007 Emergent Theological Conversation asked me to write a response to the following question in order to help participants starting thinking ahead about the encounter:

"Why is the Emerging Church drawn to Deconstructive Theology?"

I'm not sure how soon or exactly where they are going to post my response, but here it is so we can go ahead and get started on our own conversation! 

______________________________

"Why is the Emerging Church drawn to Deconstructive Theology?"

I see at least three emphases within “deconstruction” – understood broadly in the sense proposed by Caputo – that would naturally be attractive to Emergent Types (hereafter ET).

First, deconstruction not only accepts but embraces the category of difference. In part this is attractive to ET because they (we) are embedded within a late modern generation that is open to difference in ways that (so it appears to us) our evangelical “parent” churches were not. Many of these traditional churches focused on sameness: we must all behave according to the same rules, sing the same songs, look at the world the same way, and affirm precisely the same propositions. The deconstructive embrace of the significance of differentiation (differance, deference, etc.) gives ET a language for what they have already experienced: liberation from a constricting obsession with sameness.

Second, deconstructive epistemology (or hermeneutics) calls for humility within the search for knowledge. Now, my point is not that all deconstructive philosophers are humble and (say) analytic philosophers are not. My point is that the “method” of deconstruction is self-reflective in a way that promotes an ongoing interrogation of the way in which one is holding on to one’s knowledge. It challenges arrogant claims to have grasped final, neutral, universal truth. Many ET were raised in churches within the American evangelical sub-culture, wherein theological reflection was anything but humble. In fact, it wasn’t even reflection; it was declaration. Insofar as Derrida (and others) share epistemic qualities such as humility with the Christian apophatic tradition, the former can inspire ET to retrieve the latter. As we continue longing to know and be known by God, deconstruction can alleviate some of our modernist anxiety by helping us accept our finitude; we are not God, but this is OK and we can all take a deep breath and humbly follow in the way of Jesus without pretending like we know everything. After all, even he didn’t know everything! ;)

Finally, deconstruction is surprising. We do not know ahead of time exactly what will emerge when we begin the process of interrogating our beliefs and the practices that shape our interpretations. Constantinian churches don’t like being surprised. They like being in control, and so their engagements with the “other” and the “unknown” tend to look more like colonization than open exploration. ET are willing to give up the need to predict the outcome of every encounter with absolute certainty. In fact, they kind of get a kick out of the shocking discoveries that emerge during the journey itself. Allowing for deconstructive moments within philosophy and theology is one way to open oneself to such surprises, and even to delight in them as they facilitate real transformation.

I’m sure there are many other more concrete reasons that deconstruction is appealing to ET, but it seems to me that these three general characteristics of the approach are a significant part of the mutual attraction. But, hey, maybe you think differently. I could be wrong. Surprise me.

_________________________________

Comments, reflections, accusations of heresy...?

Comments

[Daniel Eller]

…Derrida was once asked in an interview, “If you could have any philosopher as a mother, which one would it be?” After a long pause and a silent snicker, he said, “none of them… accept, perhaps, my son and I… deconstruction is feminine in its idea making.”

This intrigued me, because this is why I was so drawn to deconstruction. The way that deconstruction seems to transform texts and lives through its attention, its focus, its “differance;” rather than bringing transformation through its assertions, its logic, its argumentation. Deconstruction seemed to live-out Rembrandts’ “the Prodigal Son,” where the father embraces the son with both a masculine hand and a feminine hand. In short, deconstructive acts seem to take seriously Nietzsche’s question, “what if truth were a woman?”

I still am not quite sure what to fully do with deconstruction, but I know that I must let it speak… because something in what it does not “say,” seems to speak with more transformative power than the affirmations of a thousand “orthodox” theologians.

dan

[Daniel Eller]

...I should have said Nietzsche's assertion, "assuming that truth is a women--what then?"

[Andrew Arndt]

LeRon,

I love your last point about emergents longing for the suprises (good and terrifying gospel surprises!) that deconstruction can unearth. Having gone to a seminary which, so it seemed, was beginning to polarize between emergents and emergent sympathizers on the one hand, and those who opposed anything that smelled even remotely "postmodern" on the other hand, I have noticed that when you really get down to it with the latter camp, their primary motivation for questing in the way that they do is fear. Fear that somehow if sacred formulations are challenged and critical thinking is encouraged, they may find themselves beyond the pale. The theology that is done within this attitude is thus very constricting as well as being self-serving.

And, of course, then it just becomes irrelevent ... e.g., the interminable debates between sovereignty questions within a Calvinist and Arminian framework. Who cares? Certainly not our Orthodox and Catholic friends ... still less those who have yet to embrace Christ.

By contrast, those who embrace deconstruction with a redemptive outlook seem to more consistently evince a bold and questing ache to see persons transformed ... rather than to see familiar epistemological structures upheld.

But really, can we do good theology out of fear? I loved your Merton quote several weeks ago: "Why should I desire anything that cannot give me God? And why should I fear anything that cannot take God away from me?"

"Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?"

Now what if the church really believed that?

[Andrew Arndt]

Oh, and one more thought:

The approach many evangelicals have to their theology--that is: We have captured the mystery with our words; we've got it pretty much completely right; and we can prove it through a series of deductions--reminds me of a comparison Walter Brueggeman made between establishing the text of Scripture with historical certainty and the ark of the covenant: When you open it up, you don't find God in it...

Paleo-constructive theology, as you put, simply FEELS vapid and devoid of God's unmaking, constitutive kavod, and the emergent quest to deconstruct is very much a quest for the inscrutible presence of Yahweh

Or so it seems to one emergent...

[Ken Reynhout]

LeRon,

Can you comment on the way in which you have used "deconstructive" in some of your other works? In particular, you have made the distinction between "de-constructive" approaches to theology, which are dead end approaches that tend toward nihilism, "paelo-constructive" approaches, which are also dead end approaches because they attempt to maintain or return to some "pure" form of theology, and "re-constructive" approaches, which attempt to liberate theology by articulating key biblical intuitions in conversation with contemporary philosophy and science. In this context, "de-constructive" has a very negative connotation.

In contrast, your blog contribution for the emergent conference is a positive approporiation of the deconstructive move. Now, I think I know what you are doing. Thanks to Dan Eller, I know enough about Derrida and Caputo to admit that there is some constructive potential in deconstructive philosophy. At the same time, this may not be a sentiment that is widely shared.

In a recent conversation someone explained to me that they had become disillusioned with the emergent movement precisley because of its fascination with deconstruction, which they found to be nothing but nihilistic demolition. This could only, in their opinion, lead to a deep contradiction in the emergent movement that would eventually lead to its own demise from within. Meaninglessness, this person suggested, is not a concept to build a church on.

Now, my reaction to this person was that not all forms of deconstruction are exactly the same, and that it was not necessarily nihilistic. But I couldn't say much more than that. So, what I am asking from you, particularly in light of your earler negative use of the term in contrast with this more positive construal, is to elaborate for us when deconstruction is either a good thing or a bad thing. When and how does it help us, and can it avoid the meaninglessness that my friend is so concerned about?

Deconstruct your own use of the term "deconstruction," if you will.

Thanks, Ken

[pete]

Interesting, especially the second point, from a Lutheran perspective. Lutherans believe that "Church happens" (to use a Baptist-sounding phrase) around the PROCLAMATION of the Word and the ADMINISTRATION of the Sacraments. Proclamation/Declaration...interesting.
Should anyone be surprised at the number of emergent Lutherans?

[Brandon Lorge]

LeRon,

I’ve been a “lurker” within the shadows of your blog for a bit now, but have decided to “come out of the closet” as it were and comment on this post.

Firstly, I should mention that I’m reading Of Grammatology with Lois Malcolm. I’m also reading “Deconstruction in a Nutshell” edited by Caputo as an aid in slogging through the OG.

I’ve been giving some thought to the idea of trace, or presence in absence, absence in presence that Derrida works with in OG. Could this idea be helpful in the Emerging Church dialogue? It seems to me that your main points had to do with the Zeitgeist of the Emerging Church overlapping with that of Deconstruction. This is something upon which I can readily get on board, however I think that the trace, and différrence have their place within the theological conversation beyond the soupçon that they’ve been assigned. They aren’t abstract distinctions, but heuristics for theology in the late modern era.

Do you agree, or am I way off-base?

[Tony Mills]

LeRon-
I think it's interesting that when you talk about the fear of letting go of theological positions, it almost always refers to the fear conservatives have about letting things go. I think this fear is equally present in classic "liberal" theology as well. I had a conversation with a self-proclaimed liberal Christian a few years ago who, in a moment of honesty, admitted that "as much as we liberals are all about tolerance, we do not tolerate intolerance." Perhaps this intolerance of difference also stems from fear, just as much as intolerance does in conservatice circles? For myself, while there are still "conservative" views of which I struggle to let go (and I will not let go for the mere sake of letting go, but only if letting go is transformative and more beautiful), I also hold tightly to my "reconstructive" views (which I gleaned from you, Pannenberg, Jenson, etc.) in my encounters with others who do not agree (for whatever reason). My question, I guess, is to what extent, if any, we distinguish between fear of letting things go and tenacity to hold to things which really are good, true, and beautiful? After having come this far, are there not views you won't abandon? If not, does it mean you are afraid?

Also, can you give me the Caputo reference you mentioned in the first post?

[LeRon]

Hi Dan,

Very interesting point about the femininity of truth! Of course, one wants to avoid stereotypes so one does not get oneself in trouble...

So, using the example I so often do in class: the feminine presence in relation to whom I spend my life is an astonishingly "true" presence. But this does not mean I always "get" her, or even that I want to have her completely figured out.

It is precisely the trembling feeling I get when I pursue knowing her better that makes it so delightful... so also with "TRUTH" !

LeRon

[LeRon]

Dear Pete and Brandon (the Lutheran lurkers!) ;)

Pete, you make a good point about Lutheran intuitions, and this does clarify why they might be more open to engaging emergent and aspects of deconstructivism... "sin boldly" and all that. ;)

Brandon, first, welcome! Yes, I think you are right about the role of concepts like the trace... I like the idea of using them as "heuristics." My experience with many evangelicals, especially some who think they are "Reformed," but understand this in a narrow, strange, sense, is that they are not aware that they already have a "heuristic" (early modern categories) and so the idea of using a heuristic (postmodern or otherwise) sounds heretical... "just" "read" "the" "Bible" "and" "believe" "what" "it" "says."

LeRon

[LeRon]

Dear Andrew and Ken,

(you both mention paleo-constructivism...)

Andrew,

Very well said! I too find the Hebrew experience of the glory of God very illuminative (sic!) on this point. We cannot control it, and of course this terrifies us (as it did them). The glory of God appears in the face of Jesus (2 Cor 4) but even here we do not control it... it confronts us and transforms us.

One of the things I like most about so many of the ETs I have met is that they desire to be radically open to this unmanipulable transformative presence.

Ken,

Thanks SO much for the clarifying question. Yes, as I was writing that it occurred to me that I was waffling on "deconstruction."

I'm sure you noticed that I use qualifiers, like "understood broadly in the sense proposed by Caputo," "general" characteristics, and calling for deconstructive "moments."

I'll make a confession... sometimes I like to be provocative in these kinds of posts that are going to a wider audience... but, then, I need to clarify as you suggest.

So, in some of my books I have made the distinction between de-constructive, re-constructive, and paleo-constructive. In that context, I am referring to the extreme relativist examples of that camp, but I think these are in the minority and actually quite rare, as I point out (e.g., RTA, p. 7; RDG, p. 3).

I also recognize that one of the important steps or "moments" in re-construction is itself de-constructive. For example, in the transition from Part I to Part II of RDG, I use this terminology.

I think you are right, Ken, that I need to clarify my own use of the term, to deconstruct my own conception of deconstruction.

Sometimes, at the beginning of the conversation, however, its helpful to leave only a little trace... ;)

In response to your friend, my first step would be to try to explain the possibility of a middle way between meaningless and controlling meaning. This would be along the lines of the middle way between relativism and absolutism, which I outline in Chapter 2 of the Postfoundationalist Task of Theology.

Ken, you are such a good friend. I know that you already know all of this, but it is so kind of you to take the inevitable critic's question and place it in your own friendly mouth, which makes it so much easier for me to respond!

Btw, you've got me thinking I need to say something about this in the Intro to the Christology and Science book.

Btw, again, my next book (after the Holy Spirit) may be on the concept of difference, so this would give me a chance to do in more detail what you are rightly calling for.

LeRon

[David Worley]

I appreciated Ken's points about the nuanced nature of paleo, de, and re-constructive from LeRon’s earlier works and thanks to his inquiry I have nothing more to add to the prior post; I am interested in an additional question related to this discussion strand. Where is “Emergent” at in its developmental process?

I hold an organizational theory that movements (and organizations) go through phases of maturity (similar to people) and develop different ways of relating to the world. You can most certainly see this in the short life of a church like Willow Creek, you see it in theological education, and I think you see it in historic church movements. In light of this, assuming you agree with my presupposition, where is the Emergent conversation in its development?

Several years ago when I first came into contact with Emergent I was a little turned off by the reactionary, "the church sucks" attitude of the critical mass of its participants. I have noticed that over the last few years this has begun to change and while you still run across a good share of dissidents in Emergent it seems there is a growing mass of Emergent sympathizers that recognize the goal is critical reflection and renewed articulation of beautiful and loving re-expressions of the local church. This to me is a sign of growth and development for Emergent and I am wondering what others think about this macro-trajectory. Do you agree with my assessment? If so why?

[Ken Reynhout]

Good questions David. I don't know enough about the emergent church to offer any informed response, but I will add a question. What is "emergent" about the emergent church? How is the term generally understood, and how should it be understood?
Ken

[Dana Ames]

Ken,
This is a quote from the blog of Andrew Jones, www.tallskinnykiwi.com, from March 2005. Andrew has been a missionary for a number of years, presently lives on Orkney, and has connections with many emerging/missional churches and people around the world. No doubt LeRon or others will want to add to this, but it's a good place to start:

BOQ
As for church, “Emergent” is a name that is being used at the moment, to describe the church’s response to the current emerging culture, and the peculiar aggregation of believers being called up out of this culture to follow Jesus back into it.

“Emergent”, as it is used in “emergent theory”, is a name given to the phenomena (sic) of how new organizational structures progress from low-level chaos to higher level sophistication without a hierarchical command structure. Emergent theory explains how birds change direction, how slime mould moves, how ant colonies are built and how Amazon.com knows so much about us. The process involves constant communication and feedback among the lowest level of organization, pattern recognition, local action affecting global behavior, and takes into consideration the element of unpredictability in a chaotic system. Solomon was wise in suggesting that we observe the ways of the ant and be wise (Proverbs 6:6) And the emerging church has been wise in allowing the vocabulary from emergent behavior to give a window of insight to the traditional church....

New churches among the emerging culture generally have an organizational structure that is best described as “emergent”. Emergent organisations (ant colonies, slime mould) organise from below rather than top-down, they depend on feedback for adaptation, show decentralised thinking, and responded locally in a way that affects the global situation. In writing about the “Character of the Emergent Church”, Kester Brewin sees emergent systems as being open systems, adaptable systems, learning systems, having distributed knowledge, and modelling servant leadership.“ From ”The Complex Christ: Signs of Emergence in the Urban Church“

”Our minds may be wired to look for the pacemakers, but we are steadily learning how to think from the bottom up“ (Steve Johnson, Emergence)

Emergent behavior is a good way to describe how new churches are responding to a complex world of chaotic unpredictability and multiple possibilities. One of the defining features of emergent churches is that they are usually started with no predetermined ideal of what they will mature into or what size and shape they will become, since they will be also be shaped by the culture they transform. Another word for this is ”missional“. Unpredictability opens the possibility for a miraculous intervention and retooling by God during the process, as long as structures are simple, and communication is constant.
EOQ

There is an organization in the US called Emergent (also has "branches" elsewhere), www.emergentvillage.com, which is one self-organized group maintaining communication with whoever wants to talk. They are sponsoring the event to which LeRon refers at the top of the post.

Dana

[Ken Reynhout]

Dana,

Thank you for the extended quote. Assuming that it is representative of the wider movement, it is a very helpful guide to what is meant by "emergent" in the emergent church. If I can paraphrase, it seems to me that the term is focused on its preferred mode of church/community organization, and in that limited sense it may be an appropriate analogy (even if there are serious dis-analogies between this usage and the way that emergence is used in a mathematical sense).

But notice the first part of the quote you provided: "'Emergent' is a name that is being used at the moment, to describe the church’s response to the current emerging culture, and the peculiar aggregation of believers being called up out of this culture to follow Jesus back into it." Here is where I have some concerns. Not about the engagement of culture, I am all for that. But the language of being "called up out of the culture" in concert with a self-identification as "emergent" could imply that the emergent church sees itself as supervening over culture in some way. Likewise, the appelation "emergent church" has similar negative connotations, as if this new way of doing church is a phenomenon that emerges from the chaos of the current church situation and rides over it it some more complex and superior way. Now I wouldn't contest the claim that the church today is in some senses "chaotic," but the idea that the emergent church has somehow risen above the fray to a higher order strikes me as deep hubris.

Please don't misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that this is how the emergent church views itself. What I am saying is that the term is potentially misleading in this way, and I know of a few people who have interpreted the term in this fashion (admittedly not knowing much about the movement).

While I am in synch with much of the intuition and reforming impulse of the emergent church (as I understand it), I do have some doubts about its long-term viability. And if their self-perception ever changes, explicitly or implictly, such that it starts viewing itself as "emergent" in the troubling sense I just outlined, then I would be even more skeptical about its future.

Ken

[Dana Ames]

Ken,
I don't think Andrew or most of the folks at Emergent the org. would see themselves as supervening the culture or riding over it in a superior way. All the engagement I've had with serious thinking people who identify as "emerging" has had an undergirding not of hubris but of humility...I think they'd say they're the ones puddling around in the chaos...

There are all different kinds of self-identified emergers, in all stages of development, both as individuals and as whatever the thing is as a whole. Andrew is one of the best- a solid thinker, a prayerful listener, a globally connect-ed/ing practitioner and a bridge-builder.

Dana

[LeRon]

David,

My sense has been that the Emergent coordinators have increasingly realized the need to embrace whatever has "self-organized" in order to allow its functions to facilitate new energetic capacities.

Some are even interested in forming "institutions," but for the most part there is still resistance to ever becoming "static." Given the typical developmental patterns of organizations, it will be interesting to see what happens.

From private conversations, my sense is that the main facilitators (that I know) would not be upset if the name Emergent went away, or if their current organization dissolved. They are interested in the process.

Ken and Dana,

My experience has been very much like yours, Dana.

There are a few wackos... which makes thing interesting... perhaps I am one of them... but, for the most part, ET are interested in thinking critically and engaging cultural radically... interested less in judging others or controlling them than in joining in conversations for mutual transformation.

I'm there.

[David Worley]

LeRon- You mentioned: Some are even interested in forming "institutions," but for the most part there is still resistance to ever becoming "static."

I am happy to hear this. I am concerned that the American Evangelical tendency towards anti-intellectualism will carry forward in the emerging church. I believe churches that are "emerging" need more intense theological reflection and better informed decision making than our 20th century predecessors. It is good to hear that leaders within Emergent recognize the need to "organize."

I hope that ET's find a home in many existing mainline theological schools, because I see how ET's would benefit from the type of dialog that occurs at most progressive mainline schools and how these same schools would benefit from ET's presence in the life of their institution. Perhaps this relatively new movement could have a salubrious influence on mainline institutions and vice-versa. Furthermore, if the future of ministry is headed toward bi-vocational (tent making) pastorates, the significant resource base of mainline denominations (particularly their graduate schools) could be harnessed for its intended purpose… the cultivation and development of the Church.

Obviously, real partnerships are in order; I think collaboration would benefit everyone involved.

[LeRon]

For those of you who might like to engage the conversation auf Deutsch:

http://danielehniss.de/2007/02/22/dekonstruktivistische-theologie

[Phillip Ross]

Leron,

ETs appear to be interested in being different, but you said nothing about the Bible or faithfulness. The issue is not differentness or sameness, but faithfulness. People can be faithful in the same ways and in different ways. I'm afraid you are making a false distinction or a distinction of no importance.

You said, “Insofar as Derrida (and others) share epistemic qualities such as humility with the Christian apophatic tradition, the former can inspire ET to retrieve the latter.” Hmm.

Let’s deconstruct this sentence. First some definitions. Apophatic: Of or relating to the belief that God can be known to humans only in terms of what He is not (such as ‘God is unknowable’). In other words, God is not knowable through Jesus Christ because Jesus Christ is traditionally understood to be God Himself through the reality of the Trinity. Jesus is not helpful in terms of knowing God because “God can be known to humans only in terms of what He is not.”

Follow this: “Derrida’s particular methods of textual criticism, which involved discovering, recognizing, and understanding the underlying — and unspoken and implicit — assumptions, ideas, and frameworks that form the basis for thought and belief, for example, in complicating the ordinary division made between nature and culture.” from — Wikipedia. Thus, to apply the textual criticism of deconstruction to the the Bible involves understanding the underlying and unspoken assumptions of God. Wow, that’s really something.

Further, “the former” (humility) “can inspire ET to retrieve the latter” (the “Christian” apophatic tradition). I put the word Christian in quotes because saying so does not make it so. And it isn’t. Christianity is not about knowing God through what He isn’t. Christianity is about knowing and loving God through His self-revelation in Scripture. And the humility that denies that the Bible is God’s Word revealed is actually the pride that exalts Man (and/or me — the self) above God in order to deny this most basic Christian premise.

Finally, “deconstruction is surprising.” Yes, when you blow a thing up, you can’t quite be sure of all of the consequences and ramifications. Blowing up parts of the foundation of your home can have some surprising results — and as an additional bonus, those results can be exiting (nerve stimulating).

“Allowing for deconstructive moments within philosophy and theology is one way to open oneself to such surprises, and even to delight in them as they facilitate real transformation.”

The transformation of a home into a pile of rubble is a real transformation. However, the importance of “transformation” is not the process, but the end result. Transformation into what? ETs apparently don’t know, and they enjoy being surprised about it. I’ll bet that people in hell are often surprised to find themselves there.

The roots of deconstructionism are Nietzscheian. Derrida is standing on Neitzche's shoulders. And Neitzche may have been the smartest person ever to hate God in general and Christianity in particular.

Phil
www.pilgrim-platform.org

[LeRon]

Dear Phil,

Fascinating.

First, I should mention that of course if they had asked me to comment on ETs attitudes toward the Bible or faithfulness (or something else), I surely would have!

Well... after some reflection, I will just say this... as I mention in my "About" page, this blog is really intended for readers who have engaged or are interested in engaging the philosophical and theological issues that I have written about, and desire to discuss them further.

Although Wikipedia (your source for Derrida) is a fascinating source of information, I'm really hoping to foster discussion on these topics at a different level.

If you are interested in my interpretation of Derrida, apophatic theology, etc., you might want to take a look at RDG, chapters 2 and 5, and TS, chapter 3, and (for theological method) all of PFT.

I don't mean to sound dismissive. If you would like to discuss specific texts in Derrida, Nietzsche or one of the apophatic theologians, that support your reading of them, please share a quote with us and explain how you see it fitting into their corpus.

LeRon

[John L]

LeRon: The notion of deconstruction is clearly at the heart of Xn faith – an ongoing removal of any idea or motive that prevents Christ’s love from breaking forth.

But how do you respond to those who would hold Paul as the antithesis of deconstruction? What does a deconstructionist do with Paul’s triumphal certainty?

Phil: you're equating deconstruction with destruction. Xn deconstruction exists to increase Jesus, as we decrease.

p.s. LeRon – the Templeton-Catalhoyuk project looks fascinating. An urban center which dates to 7600BC? Wow! How does a theologian fit into this? Perhaps you could blog a little bit about your project role?

[LeRon]

Hi John,

Thanks for the comments... I wholly agree! I would add this is probably why many people resist: having Christ's love break forth often requires the breaking of our own hardened habits and categories.

If we understand deconstruction as one moment with a broader reconstructive process, then I think we can say that Paul illustrates both deconstructive moments (to the law, the Judaizers, Peter, etc.) but also triumphally glorious reconstructions of the Gospel.

And, yes, I'll definitely post more on Catal, probably closer to the summer.

By the way, John, love your blog!

Based on your idea of microclesia, I would be VERY interested to hear what you think about the way in which theological conversation can be facilitated in blogs like this.

Would you mind commenting on the comments toward the end of the "Delightful Terror of Union" Post?

LeRon

[Ari]

Constantinian - can you clarify this for a lay person? I really like what you have to say here but I don't think I'm clear on that term (or what it means in the context of your comment) Thank you :)

[LeRon]

Hi Ari,

This refers to the shift in the relation of the church to the state (and culture, society) after the emperor Constantine made it an official religion. The shift was from persecution by the state to participation in the state.