Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Constantinian Christianity vs. Prophetic Christianity


s0crates

Recommended Posts

We are discussing this distinction in a class I'm teaching, and I thought you guys might be interested in the topic.

Cornel West distinguishes two kinds of Christians: prophetic Christians, who emphasize Christ's teachings of love, peace, and justice, and Constantinian Christians, who preach hatred and bigotry. According to Dr. West, the former serves the people and the latter serves the empire.

Consider for example the vast chasm between the Christianity of Martin Luther King Jr. and that of the Westboro Baptist Church. A crude example I know, but one I hope makes the contrast vivid.

It is striking that the church justified slavery and the subjugation of women, yet it also fueled the civil rights and anti-war movements. On one hand you get inquisitions and homophobia, but on the other hand you have a Christian Children's Fund and Salvation Army. I could go on, but hopefully I've made the distinction clear.

West refers to this as a "horrible irony" and "religious schizophrenia."

What do you think?

For my part I think the prophetic Christians are more in keeping with the teachings of Jesus we find in the gospels.

For example:

Mark 10:31 "Love God with all your heart. Love your neighbor as yourself. No other commandment is greater."

Matthew 5:44 "Love your enemies."

Matthew 5:39 & Luke 6:29 "Turn the other cheek."

Mark. 10:21 & Matthew 19:21. "Sell all you have and give it to the poor."

Luke 6:30 "Give to everyone who asks of you."

Matthew 7:1 "Judge not, that you be not judged."

Prophetic Christians take these teachings seriously, they embrace the essential Christian message of love, peace, charity, and justice. Jesus was, after all, the prince of peace.

It's a long way from that to the Constantinian Christianity of religious fundamentalists who have been enlisted in support of war and money, who have opposed the poor, and who tend towards hatred, judgement, and bigotry. I can only imagine the type of mental gymnastics it must take to reconcile their belief system with the gospels. On the surface, such Constantinian Christians seem like hypocrites.

What do you make of this "crisis of Christian identity"? Who are the real Christians?

I look forward to your feedback.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a person that is very direct, I don't have all these big words to use... I am not a theologian. I do not have any deep meaning behind my words. If I say something, I am saying it and I mean it...

I say all that to say this, the fact that anybody can say that there is two kinds of Christians means to me that there is a problem in the body of Christ!

Unfortunately, I have no idea what that problem is. Lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Examples of prophetic Christians given by Dr. West: Walter Rauschenbusch, Dorothy Day, Philip and Daniel Berrigan, William Sloan Coffin, Martin Luther King Jr., David Walker, Ida Wells-Barnett, Benjamin E. Mays, and Howard Thurman.

Examples he gives of Constantinian Christians: Christian Fundamentalists, the Moral Majority, Bush, Ashcroft, Christian Coalition, Jerry Faldwell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure you sold me here. This feels like Sesame St academia at best

Well it is a 100 level class, and this is an internet message board.

I'm curious, what is it you find unconvincing? Do you not agree that there are these two types of Christians?

Oh I get it you mean good people versus assholes. The fancy vernacular threw me

Right. I think the idea is that Jesus was more "good person" than "asshole," so asshole Christians are at best deeply confused.

The surprising thing is how many (most?) self-professing Christians fall in the asshole camp. They apparently missed the message.

Someone who calls himself a Christian, supports war, and opposes the poor is a hypocrite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It would be an improvementif Christians followed the good advice from their holy books and ignored the bad advice.

It would also help if they acknowledge that they are the ones picking and choosing which advice to follow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

West is trying to revive liberal Christianity here. Christians have a long (lost?) tradition of fighting for social justice.

So much of Christianity has been co-opted in support of the anti-Christian right wing agenda.

West claims that the left will not win on secular grounds, they need to appeal to the Christian conscience by emphasizing the gospels. Something like that.

I think his approach has merit. 80% of Americans self-identify as Christians.

It would be an improvementif Christians followed the good advice from their holy books and ignored the bad advice.

That's my main concern here, the bible isn't exactly consistent.

Although the gospels do refute a lot of the bad advice (e.g. The sermon on the mount), there are still troubling passages such as : "Give no thought for tomorrow" or that whole business about "wailing and gnashing of teeth."

Still, I think the gospels are fairly unambiguous when it comes to pacifism, love, and charity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Christianity without the Old Testament would closer resemble modern morality.

I like the idea of appealing to Christian values to advance a liberal agenda. However, I think this can and should be done without actually promoting religion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

West is trying to revive liberal Christianity here. Christians have a long (lost?) tradition of fighting for social justice.

So much of Christianity has been co-opted in support of the anti-Christian right wing agenda.

West claims that the left will not win on secular grounds, they need to appeal to the Christian conscience by emphasizing the gospels. Something like that.

 

 

West sounds like he is trying to revive liberal politics rather than Christianity.....The Moral Majority under a different flag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Christianity without the Old Testament would closer resemble modern morality.

I like the idea of appealing to Christian values to advance a liberal agenda. However, I think this can and should be done without actually promoting religion.

West has taken a tough position here. He is going to get it from both sides, so to speak. Both the secular left and the fundies on the right will take issue. He tries to address both camps.

Regarding the secular types he admits there is wisdom in their "deep fear of the dogmatism and authoritarianism of the religious Right." He thinks we would do well to heed the secular warnings here.

However, he says, "they preclude a robust democratic Christian identity that builds on the legacy of prophetic Christian-led social movements." Christians were on the forefront of abolitionist, women's rights, worker's rights, civil rights, and anti-war movements. He thinks we need more of that, and we would be unwise to "put up a wall to prevent religious language in the public square."

In the face of Christian fundamentalism, we need prophetic Christians. "A purely secular fight won't be won."

I don't know if you're satisfied by that, but that's his answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

West sounds like he is trying to revive liberal politics rather than Christianity.....The Moral Majority under a different flag.

No doubt West is a radical leftist , but he is also a committed Christian. I wouldn't question his priorities here, he is actually quite clear about where his allegiance is.

In his words, " I speak as a Christian--one whose commitment to democracy is very deep but whose Christian convictions are even deeper. Democracy is not my faith. And American democracy is not my idol. To see the gospel of Jesus Christ ****ized by imperial Christians and pulverized by Constantinian believers and then exploited by nihilistic elites of the American empire makes my blood boil. To be a Christian--a follower of Jesus Christ--is to love wisdom, love justice, and love freedom."

The simple fact is liberal politics coheres with the message of Jesus much better than conservative politics. Or do you disagree?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

However, he says, "they preclude a robust democratic Christian identity that builds on the legacy of prophetic Christian-led social movements." Christians were on the forefront of abolitionist, women's rights, worker's rights, civil rights, and anti-war movements. He thinks we need more of that, and we would be unwise to "put up a wall to prevent religious language in the public square."

In the face of Christian fundamentalism, we need prophetic Christians. "A purely secular fight won't be won."

I don't know if you're satisfied by that, but that's his answer.

I would disagree with both of these ideas.

First, I do not think it is accurate to say claim Christian ownership of social movements. It is an oversimplification at best. It could also be construed as an intentionally misleading statement akin to "USA was formed a Christian nation".

Second, I think he underestimates the impact of the Internet on religious belief. Super-naturalism is unsustainable in the information age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Examples of prophetic Christians given by Dr. West: Walter Rauschenbusch, Dorothy Day, Philip and Daniel Berrigan, William Sloan Coffin, Martin Luther King Jr., David Walker, Ida Wells-Barnett, Benjamin E. Mays, and Howard Thurman.

Examples he gives of Constantinian Christians: Christian Fundamentalists, the Moral Majority, Bush, Ashcroft, Christian Coalition, Jerry Falwell

I think West historical perspective and entire line of reasoning is troubling. There were Christians on both sides of every issue he attributes to "good prophetic christians" and "bad Constantinian Christians"... Hell if anything it was what he's calling the Constantinian Christians who knocked the hell out of slavery and did battle literally with the slave interests in this country... John Brown wasn't a touchy feely do onto other's kind of guy.. Nor were the abolitionist community which supported him and did battle with the slave interests in bleeding Kansas...

I would argue that singling out Constantinian christianity as moral majority types is not only historically indefensible, it's oversimplified dribble. As is the premise evangelicals don't see themselves as doing Christs work or carrying his message any less than sister Teresa ministering to the poor in Calcutta.

I think in general the distinction you are seeking is more accurately described as inward looking, or outward looking. Do specific sects of Christianity teach salvation is a personal responsibility.. Or do they teach salvation is a group achievement? Are You on a bus, with a community all going to salvation together?

If you are by yourself and see yourself as the captain of your own ship, with a personal relationship with God; you tend not to be as judgemental and you tend to try to focus on your own shortcomings because that's really what you must be all about to be a moral person. Likewise if you are on a personal journey, your religious sermons tend to be less fire and brimstone, and more about guidance and suggestions on how to tackle common problems..

However if you see yourself on a bus with a community all going to the pearly gates together, then it becomes your responsibility and great burden to speak up and tell folks when they are messing up from your churches perspective. That not everybody shares your beliefs as in the case of the West Burrow Baptists Church and the veterans families is besides the point. It falls to you to be your neighbors alarm bell that he's violating god's will and jeopardizes crashing the bus carrying you all to salvation. I really don't think William Lord Garrison, Fredrick Douglas, or Wendell Phillips were any less annoying to slave interests.

It's just not a question between people of good will and bad will. And as someone who would probable be most closely associated with what you are calling a prophetic Christian, I would still argue most social change due to christian values occurs due to the efforts of the folks you are calling Constantinian Christians. Folks who believe it is their business to insert their nose in your business and tell you slavery is wrong, drinking is wrong, women not having the vote is wrong, segregation is wrong.. war is wrong....etc.. Folks who literally wear their faith on their sleeve and will tell you about yourself if they see you screwing up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.... liberal politics coheres with the message of Jesus much better than conservative politics. Or do you disagree?

13 “Therefore stay alert, because you do not know the day or the hour. 14 For it is like a man going on a journey, who summoned his slaves and entrusted his property to them. 15 To one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one, each according to his ability. Then he went on his journey. 16 The one who had received five talents went off right away and put his money to work270 and gained five more. 17 In the same way, the one who had two gained two more. 18 But the one who had received one talent went out and dug a hole in the ground and hid his master’s money in it. 19 After a long time, the master of those slaves came and settled his accounts with them. 20 The one who had received the five talents came and brought five more, saying, ‘Sir, you entrusted me with five talents. See, I have gained five more.’ 21 His master answered, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave! You have been faithful in a few things. I will put you in charge of many things. Enter into the joy of your master.’ 22 The one with the two talents also came and said, ‘Sir, you entrusted two talents to me. See, I have gained two more.’ 23 His master answered, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave! You have been faithful with a few things. I will put you in charge of many things. Enter into the joy of your master.’ 24 Then the one who had received the one talent came and said, ‘Sir, I knew that you were a hard man, harvesting where you did not sow, and gathering where you did not scatter seed, 25 so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. See, you have what is yours.’ 26 But his master answered, ‘Evil and lazy slave! So you knew that I harvest where I didn’t sow and gather where I didn’t scatter? 27 Then you should have deposited my money with the bankers, and on my return I would have received my money back with interest! 28 Therefore take the talent from him and give it to the one who has ten. 29 For the one who has will be given more, and he will have more than enough. But the one who does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. 30 And throw that worthless slave into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth’” (Matthew 25:13-30).

Yeahhh maaaaan TOTALLY leftist.

velocet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The simple fact is liberal politics coheres with the message of Jesus much better than conservative politics. Or do you disagree?

 

It depends on what liberal/conservative politics we are speaking of, the classical liberal I would agree .(but they seem in short supply) 

 

I share his distaste for what many use Christianity for,but see the same flaws in some of the social justice crowd.

 

wisdom ,justice and freedom can conflict as much as coexist

Link to comment
Share on other sites

velocet, I have already conceded the bit about the wailing and gnashing of teeth is a problem for West. Although I think the idea of reaping what you sow could be made coherent with liberalism (and incoherent with conservatism too).

Regardless, I find the balance of evidence about Jesus sounds darn near socialism. Just a few examples:

1) it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to get into heaven.

2) sell all you have and give the money to the poor.

3) give to everyone that asks of you.

4) turning over the tables of the money changers.

5) healing the sick

6) feeding the multitudes

7) the most important commandment: love one another

8) do not judge, let the one who is without sin cast the first stone

9) turn the other cheek

What am I to make of all that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

What am I to make of all that?

Christianity started off as a religion of the poor.

Interesting idea is that Christianity gained popularity in the upper classes because women from lower classes were telling stories to upper class children that they were taking care off. A few generations later this process gets to literate Greek speaking people who begin to write it down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right. I think the idea is that Jesus was more "good person" than "asshole," so asshole Christians are at best deeply confused.

No, Jesus definitely didn't have a problem throwing a few elbows when he wanted to send a strong message.

 

Jesus entered the temple courts and drove out all who were buying and selling there. He overturned the tables of the money changers and the benches of those selling doves.

Christianity started off as a religion of the poor.

Interesting idea is that Christianity gained popularity in the upper classes because women from lower classes were telling stories to upper class children that they were taking care off. A few generations later this process gets to literate Greek people who begin to write it down.

I'm not aware of Christianity gaining popularity via children stories and nanny's..

I think it actually gained popularity on the merits of it's teachings even in the face of great persecution by the powers that were... ultimately reaching the tipping point and attracting the attention of the Emperor looking to take the empire in a new direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would disagree with both of these ideas.

First, I do not think it is accurate to say claim Christian ownership of social movements. It is an oversimplification at best. It could also be construed as an intentionally misleading statement akin to "USA was formed a Christian nation".

Perhaps West oversimplifies, but what is the civil rights movement without the devoutly Christian Martin Luther King? What is the abolitionist movement without the fanatically religious John Brown? What is the women's suffrage movement without the Quaker Susan B. Anthony?

I do think West has a case here.

Second, I think he underestimates the impact of the Internet on religious belief. Super-naturalism is unsustainable in the information age.

Maybe it is all silly superstition, but West might counter that you underestimate the sway of faith on the majority of Americans.

I think there is power in exposing people to their own hypocrisy. Cognitive dissonance is the first step to learning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JMS - I think you and I are getting a different meaning out of Matthew 21:12 (or else we have a different idea of what an "asshole" is). Yes he was angry, but who was he angry at?

The money changers. Sounds like he was furious with the people who sell religion (mega churches?) and perhaps even bankers.

I call that righteousness and justice. You can call it being an asshole if you want.

Do I have it wrong?

PS I'm surprised you didn't bring up the fig tree. I never could make sense of that story, that seems more assholish to me. All I could say to that is it seems to be more the exception than the rule.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

West is trying to revive liberal Christianity here. Christians have a long (lost?) tradition of fighting for social justice.

Does West understand the definition of Liberal?

Christians who historically fought for social justice issues looked like this..

carrynation.gif

not like this...

hippie.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...