Constantinian Christianity vs. Prophetic Christianity

[alexey]

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.

This is a non sequitur. Can it be demonstrated that these good people would act differently without religion?

History is more complicated than "Christian-led movements". For example, I understand in the South blacks could only congregate in churches without getting harassed by authorities.

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.

I recognize the importance of religion. It will be a while until we can elect an openly atheist President, etc. I just think people tend to underestimate the effect of demographic trends and free sharing of information. Religion requires indoctrination and indoctrination requires control of information.

[JMS]

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.

I think the folks you are calling Constinian Christians are the folks who are speaking out against things which they consider unchristian like behavior.. What Jesus did was even stronger.. Jesus physically assaulted folks who he saw violating his view of acceptable behavior. Folks just doing their job, folks who obviously didn't agree with Jesus's idea of what was acceptable behavior.

[s0crates]

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...

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.

I don't think West would agree with your usage of "Constantinian Christians" here. He means imperial Christians, as Constantine made Christianity the religion of the empire. This was a drastic change from the prophetic Christianity that was the religion of poor and oppressed people.

If you are fighting for the oppressed or against the oppressor, then you are being prophetic, not Constantinian.

Abolitionist fought for the oppressed (prophetic), other Christians tried to justify slavery through scripture (Constantinian). The former was in the service of God, the latter was in the service of the state.

I wouldn't call prophetic Christians soft. I wouldn't call Martin Luther King soft. I wouldn't call William Sloan Coffin soft. They spent time in jail. What made them prophetic was that they stood for what Jesus stood for, justice, love, and peace.

The Constantinian Christians worship the empire before God. They speak of manifest destiny and God bless America when she bombs innocent civilians.

I'm not sure how to make the distinction clearer, so I hope this helps.

[s0crates]

I think the folks you are calling Constinian Christians are the folks who are speaking out against things which they consider unchristian like behavior.. What Jesus did was even stronger.. Jesus physically assaulted folks who he saw violating his view of acceptable behavior. Folks just doing their job, folks who obviously didn't agree with Jesus's idea of what was acceptable behavior.

Okay I see the confusion. The key is looking at what standard they are using for "unacceptable behavior." If it is Jesus' standard, then they are prophetic.

If they stand for the poor/oppressed and against the violent, then they are applying a Christian standard. That's righteousness.

But if they are judging gays or the least among them (like the people who would stone the prostitute), then their standard of acceptable behavior is unChristian. That's hypocrisy.

It's not whether somebody thinks they are supporting Christian values, it's whether they actually are.

[s0crates]

This is a non sequitur. Can it be demonstrated that these good people would act differently without religion?

No, but that's an unfair demand. It can be demonstrated that they did act based on their Christian values.

History is more complicated than "Christian-led movements". For example, I understand in the South blacks could only congregate in churches without getting harassed by authorities.

I agree things are never so simple.

I recognize the importance of religion. It will be a while until we can elect an openly atheist President, etc. I just think people tend to underestimate the effect of demographic trends and free sharing of information. Religion requires indoctrination and indoctrination requires control of information.

Yet the vast majority of Americans call themselves Christian.

Indoctrination is almost inevitable, people learn what they are taught. The question is what doctrine should people be taught?

I don't know the answer to that, but I am confident the doctrines of free-market worship and fundamentalist Christianity are the wrong answers.

[twa]

go and sin no more isn't judgmental?

He judged both her and them....she did not need her sin spelled out for her to know it

[s0crates]

go and sin no more isn't judgmental?

He judged both her and them....she did not need her sin spelled out for her to know it

I think Jesus' treatment of the prostitute stands in stark contrast to the way many (most?) Christians judge "sinners." He treated her with love.

Do you think the "god hates fags " crowd is being Christ-like? Because I think they are closer to the people who wanted to stone the prostitute.

[twa]

I think the Westborough group is a money scheme and those like them are similarly focused on things other than Christ

 

Love is not ignoring sin though,it is a means of helping correct it.

[Gallen5862]

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.

 

It goes along with the Vine and the branches. That those branches not producing fruit would be cast into the fire. Commentaries said that the fig tree that was cursed had alot of leaves and foilage but no fruit. Since Jesus knew that the fig tree would not produce fruit that year it was cursed to never bear fruit. That was a demonstration of the vine and the branches teaching.

[s0crates]

I think the Westborough group is a money scheme and those like them are similarly focused on things other than Christ

Love is not ignoring sin though,it is a means of helping correct it.

I agree with that.

I think the sins of greed and violence in our culture stand most in need of correction.

It goes along with the Vine and the branches. That those branches not producing fruit would be cast into the fire. Commentaries said that the fig tree that was cursed had alot of leaves and foilage but no fruit. Since Jesus knew that the fig tree would not produce fruit that year it was cursed to never bear fruit. That was a demonstration of the vine and the branches teaching.

But I thought it wasn't the season for figs. If that's right, it seems it wouldn't really be the tree's fault.

[Gallen5862]

Scholar F.F. Bruce (Are The New Testament Documents Reliable?) stated that in the Middle East. people would look for small edible knobs or taqsh in Arabic to appear with the leaves and fall off when the actual fruit developed.If the knobs or taqsh did not appear with the leaves no figs would appear that year. It states that Jesus knew it was hopeless for any figs on that tree for the year so the tree was cursed. It had fair foilage but no taqsh.

[JMS]

I don't think West would agree with your usage of "Constantinian Christians" here. He means imperial Christians, as Constantine made Christianity the religion of the empire. This was a drastic change from the prophetic Christianity that was the religion of poor and oppressed people.

hmmm, Constantine was the imperial, he was an emperor. He didn't make Christians imperials... He did change state position on the religion from outlaws who could be put to death for practicing their faith, legalizing it... But that hardly seems to be the same as making them "imperial"... Typically if one were looking for a turning point in Christianity for the worse, one wouldn't pick constantine's legalization of the faith, but rather the Donation of Constantine / Donation of Pepin, where the Pope hood winked Charlemagne's sucessors into making the Papacy a temporal power. This or Charlemagne being crowned by the Pope the king of all Christondome. These are typically where Christians point to as turn for the worse in Christianity... not that these have anything to do with the kind of judgemental behavior you are speaking of.. More about the Papacy beginning to concern itself more with temporal wealth, selling offices, and a lot of the sort of thing Martin Luther ultimately called Catholicism on the carpet for resulting in the reformation and centuries of christian troubling behaviors..

 

If you are fighting for the oppressed or against the oppressor, then you are being prophetic, not Constantinian.

I would refine that even further... If you are fighting for something S0crates the pagan social critic agrees with then you are prophetic.. If not then you are Constantinian; doesn't matter if you are christian or not.

 

Abolitionist fought for the oppressed (prophetic), other Christians tried to justify slavery through scripture (Constantinian). The former was in the service of God, the latter was in the service of the state.

Abolitionists killed innocent folks too.. First guy John Brown killed in his raid on harpers ferry was Hayward Shepherd, a freed black man. I guess John Brown would say you have to crack a few eggs to make an omelet. Still think he's prophetic?

He was a radical nut job, willing to do anything, kill any innocent for a chance to make a statement against slavery.

 

I wouldn't call prophetic Christians soft. I wouldn't call Martin Luther King soft. I wouldn't call William Sloan Coffin soft. They spent time in jail. What made them prophetic was that they stood for what Jesus stood for, justice, love, and peace.

Well I would argue Martin Luther King Jr. wasn't soft by any measure. Not sure most christians including christians who agreed with him in the May of 1963 thought his actions were very christian at the time.. I'm thinking of the Birmingham campaign where King faced off against Bull Connors. A hateful bigoted man who used incredible violence including fire hoses and dogs against the peaceful civil rights marchers. Brutally savaging defenseless men and women... Kings answer to Bull Connors was to send children the youngest of whom was reportedly 8 to walk peacefully into Connors fire hoses and attack dogs..

There aren't many Christians in the country who believed at the time Martin Luther King Jr's actions were moral. King wrote "Letter from Birmingham Jail" to the christian community defending his decision to use children against such tactics as Bull Connors, because most Christians were as appalled at king as they were of Bull Connors. Nobody agreed with King... Not the Kennedy's, not Malcom X, nor Christians who otherwise supported the civil rights marches.

 

The Constantinian Christians worship the empire before God. They speak of manifest destiny and God bless America when she bombs innocent civilians.

Again I think you are confused... You say Constantine's are the radicals, but claim folks like Martin Luther King Jr; who clearly believed in his cause above all else, the definition of radicalism as a hero for the prophetic...

Again I think your definition of activist Christians being "Constantinian" or "Prophetic" is entirely arbitrary and dependent on whether you agree or disagree with their position.

 

I'm not sure how to make the distinction clearer, so I hope this helps.

It's clear... if you agree with the act, you label it good and Prophetic, if you disagree with it you label it bad and Constantinian. Arbitrary, but clear.

I think the Westborough group is a money scheme.

Really you think they're making bank?

I think it's much more likely they believe in their message, and are more than willing to be pains in the butts to folks who don't just like most of the prophetic activists.. Exactly like the prophetic activists...

The only difference is whether S0crates agrees with their position or not.

[PokerPacker]

I think what you mostly see is that what people see in their religion is a reflection of themselves or perhaps what they wish to be.

[JMS]

It's not whether somebody thinks they are supporting Christian values, it's whether they actually are.

Christian values according to you? Because really their is no consensus in what would be deemed christian values... Christianity is a big tend and there is no lack of conflicting voices willing to tell you what it's all about...

And none of them are driven by imperialism or nationalism.

I think what you mostly see is that what people see in their religion is a reflection of themselves or perhaps what they wish to be.

I think there is a difference among christian teachings and their willingness to insert themselves into other peoples business. I just don't think it breaks down on the lines of good and bad, and on the historical issues he's discussing.

[s0crates]

I'd like to point out the distinction is West's, not mine, although I think its a fruitful one.

hmmm, Constantine was the imperial, he was an emperor. He didn't make Christians imperials... He did change state position on the religion from outlaws who could be put to death for practicing their faith, legalizing it... But that hardly seems to be the same as making them "imperial"... Typically if one were looking for a turning point in Christianity for the worse, one wouldn't pick constantine's legalization of the faith, but rather the Donation of Constantine / Donation of Pepin, where the Pope hood winked Charlemagne's sucessors into making the Papacy a temporal power. This or Charlemagne being crowned by the Pope the king of all Christondome. These are typically where Christians point to as turn for the worse in Christianity... not that these have anything to do with the kind of judgemental behavior you are speaking of.. More about the Papacy beginning to concern itself more with temporal wealth, selling offices, and a lot of the sort of thing Martin Luther ultimately called Catholicism on the carpet for resulting in the reformation and centuries of christian troubling behaviors..

I see your point, although I'll add that Constantine targeted the Gnostics and other groups that denied the Old Testament for annihilation in order to establish a single imperial version of Christianity.

But you're right that the church became increasingly corrupt after Constantine. I think West would say that Christianity was corrupted by state power.

I would refine that even further... If you are fighting for something S0crates the pagan social critic agrees with then you are prophetic.. If not then you are Constantinian; doesn't matter if you are christian or not.

I've made it pretty clear that this is West's position and not mine, although I do think his view has merit, I myself lack the faith.

Abolitionists killed innocent folks too.. First guy John Brown killed in his raid on harpers ferry was Hayward Shepherd, a freed black man. I guess John Brown would say you have to crack a few eggs to make an omelet. Still think he's prophetic?

John Brown was referenced as an example of Christian influence in socially progressive movements , not necessarily a prophetic Christian. I admit it wasn't a well chosen example though, a better one would have been David Walker.

Well I would argue Martin Luther King Jr. wasn't soft by any measure. Not sure most christians including christians who agreed with him in the May of 1963 thought his actions were very christian at the time.. I'm thinking of the Birmingham campaign where King faced off against Bull Connors. A hateful bigoted man who used incredible violence including fire hoses and dogs against the peaceful civil rights marchers. Brutally savaging defenseless men and women... Kings answer to Bull Connors was to send children the youngest of whom was reportedly 8 to walk peacefully into Connors fire hoses and attack dogs..

There aren't many Christians in the country who believed at the time Martin Luther King Jr's actions were moral. King wrote "Letter from Birmingham Jail" to the christian community defending his decision to use children against such tactics as Bull Connors, because most Christians were as appalled at king as they were of Bull Connors. Nobody agreed with King... Not the Kennedy's, not Malcom X, nor Christians who otherwise supported the civil rights marches.

I think you're grasping at straws here.

Again I think you are confused... You say Constantine's are the radicals,

I never said that.

but claim folks like Martin Luther King Jr; who clearly believed in his cause above all else, the definition of radicalism as a hero for the prophetic...

This is the part you're not getting. King didn't believe in HIS cause above all else, he believed in GOD'S cause above all else. God's cause is (in the prophetic Christian tradition) love, justice, peace, truth, charity, etc.

Again I think your definition of activist Christians being "Constantinian" or "Prophetic" is entirely arbitrary and dependent on whether you agree or disagree with their position.

It's clear... if you agree with the act, you label it good and Prophetic, if you disagree with it you label it bad and Constantinian. Arbitrary, but clear.

It's really got nothing to do with what I think, it is about what the gospels say. I'm going off what Jesus said here (check the OP). I'm looking to see whether self-professing Christians are following his teachings (unambiguously, the most important commandant is love), or whether they are being hypocrites.

[s0crates]

Christian values according to you?

No, not according to me, but according to the gospels. See the OP.

Because really their is no consensus in what would be deemed christian values... Christianity is a big tend and there is no lack of conflicting voices willing to tell you what it's all about...

That's kind of the point, isn't it? How could there be any disagreement about a crystal-clear statement like "the most important commandant is love"? How could there be any misunderstanding of what "turn the other cheek" means?

West thinks Christianity is having an identity crisis.

And none of them are driven by imperialism or nationalism.

You don't think?

Don't politicians invoke God's name in support of imperial agendas?

Tell me, what is Manifest Destiny?

[alexey]

No, but that's an unfair demand. It can be demonstrated that they did act based on their Christian values.

A strong statement that is based on a non sequitur is a lie.

 

Indoctrination is almost inevitable, people learn what they are taught. The question is what doctrine should people be taught?

Are you claiming that all learning is indoctrination?

[skinsmarydu]

This is kind of ironic, I was at Family Dollar discussing this very topic with employees just yesterday. I said that some "Christians" deserved a punch in the face, and I think it was part of one of Bang's posts that I used...Jesus didn't say "Get a pile of stuff & a pile of guns to protect it", he said "help the poor, don't judge, & treat others as you like to be treated". Gigantic difference there.

[Zguy28]

This is kind of ironic, I was at Family Dollar discussing this very topic with employees just yesterday. I said that some "Christians" deserved a punch in the face, and I think it was part of one of Bang's posts that I used...Jesus didn't say "Get a pile of stuff & a pile of guns to protect it", he said "help the poor, don't judge, & treat others as you like to be treated". Gigantic difference there.

Also a vast over-simplification. And I wouldn't exactly go to an atheist like Bang (much as I love him) for advice on how to live as a disciple of Jesus. 2 cents.

[Zguy28]

No, not according to me, but according to the gospels. See the OP.

That's kind of the point, isn't it? How could there be any disagreement about a crystal-clear statement like "the most important commandant is love"? How could there be any misunderstanding of what "turn the other cheek" means?

West thinks Christianity is having an identity crisis.

 

I've seen Dr. West briefly in some videos with Robert George at Swarthmore college. It was quite good dialogue I thought. I respect West, just like I respect King, even if I disagree with some of their liberal theology.

That being said, while I also don't generally agree with his dichotomy he's created, I definitely see the elements he speaks of.

 

For instance, one can believe that homosexuality is wrong, but also believe in love. However, too often love is mischaracterized as absolute acceptance and/or approval of sin. It is not. The love Jesus preached was agape love, which is sacrificial and selfless, not emotional, and an act of the will. Jesus never condoned what the bible consistently says is sin, but he always is ready to forgive those who repent and turn to God.

 

Ideally, evangelicalism is basically a marriage of conservative biblical theology (including a high view of Scripture) and liberal & wise application. Conservative/Liberal does not equal political leanings either. Sadly Christians on both political sides have been taken in an hoodwinked by both parties. Evangelicals (who tend to be vocal) in particular by Republicans and mainline Protestants & Catholics by Democrats. All of this has confused the Gospel or been confused for the Gospel.

[chipwhich]

For instance, one can believe that homosexuality is wrong, but also believe in love.

 

The reason I decided to never attend church again is because the last church I went to I found myself sitting in a room with "Christians" who were discussing how bad homosexuals are.

[skinsmarydu]

Also a vast over-simplification. And I wouldn't exactly go to an atheist like Bang (much as I love him) for advice on how to live as a disciple of Jesus. 2 cents.

My dad's been a minister since before I was born, and he would say exactly what Bang said. Just my pennies.

[nonniey]

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

Ironic basically people he "hates" are Constantinian. Guess under his theory he'd be a Constantinian.

[Zguy28]

The reason I decided to never attend church again is because the last church I went to I found myself sitting in a room with "Christians" who were discussing how bad homosexuals are.

Is homosexual behavior not a sin, according to the Scriptures (which are the rule for faith and practice)? You see, the rub begins when we forget that ALL of us are "bad". Next time you hear that, remind them of that fact, and that the only difference between them and homosexuals is that they've been shown mercy. They are no better in and of themselves.

My dad's been a minister since before I was born, and he would say exactly what Bang said. Just my pennies.

And I would agree as well. I use to be a Bush-ite neo-con and towed the political line. Now, I see both sides play their constituencies like fiddles and that for many, the gospel is confused with political platforms.

[alexey]

Is homosexual behavior not a sin, according to the Scriptures (which are the rule for faith and practice)? You see, the rub begins when we forget that ALL of us are "bad". Next time you hear that, remind them of that fact, and that the only difference between them and homosexuals is that they've been shown mercy. They are no better in and of themselves.

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)