Constantinian Christianity vs. Prophetic Christianity

[JMS]

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.

Christianity became concerned with temporal power when itself was invested with Temporal wealth and possessions, namely the vatican states in the donation of Charlemagne.

 

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.

It's true that Constantine persecuted the christians which did not agree to the Nicene Creed. I just disagree that meaningful given your categories since nearly all Christians subscribe to the Nicene creed today including those you are calling Constantinians, and those you are calling Prophetic. Even the freaking mormons, I'm told use the Nicene Creed and they don't believe in the trinity.

 

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.

Again I would argue that the abolitionist movement in this country which overlapped with violence tendencies more closely mirrors the anti abortion movement ( associated with your Constantinian Christians) than the peace marches on Washington DC ( associated with your prophetic Christians).. As does the women's suffrage and temperance movements. Even the civil rights movement lead by king.

 

I think you're grasping at straws here.

I don't think so at all. I think King was a radical true believer who would go far beyond where most christians would go to make his point. The Birmingham Campagne demonstrates that. The only thing which separates him out from what you are calling Constantinians and Prophetics is you 50 years removed from his struggle agree with his cause.

 

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.

God's cause? How do you intuit civil rights are God's cause? It didn't become God's cause until nearly 2000 years after Jesus. The bible isn't against slavery... much less segregation. Slavery is referenced in the bible, nowhere does it denounce slavery, much less segregation. Civil rights didn't become God's cause until decades after Martin Luther King jammed civil rights down the nation's throat. Civil Rights was very much his cause, his communities cause. There were plenty of God fearing christians on both sides of that issue, as there were over slavery.

Hell sometimes the same God fearing christians were on both sides of the issue...take supreme court justice Hugo Black who would become one of the champions on the court for desegregation.. born in Alabama he had been a member of the KKK before moving onto the court. Same with President Wilson, who gave women the vote in 1918, unrepentant racist through and through and former leader in the KKK. are these guys prophetic or constantinian christians?... both, neither.. your categories are oversimplifications of complex issues. They are projections of minds which need a good or bad categories which don't exist

 

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.

The problem is s0crates you're not. You name me the issues which you attribute to being ones Jesus spoke out about.... Civil Rights, Temperance, women's suffrage, war protests; Jesus didn't speak out against any of them. much less the gospels.

Worse for your case though, some of the issues you've attributed to the Constantinians and championed by the religious right in this country are actually based upon biblical scriptures. Anti abortion, Anti Gay Marriage etc..

[JMS]

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.

No not really.. It's referenced once loosely in the new testament by Paul, never by Jesus. In the old testament it's condemned in the same verses which condemn eating shellfish, or playing football ( touching pigskin)...

Although there is more verbiage supporting anti gay movement in the scriptures than supporting anti slavery, or desegregation, or woman's suffrage, or temperance or anti war movements.

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.

Exactly, and it doesn't break down on who recites the Nicene Creed in church either.

[Zguy28]

No not really.. It's referenced once loosely in the new testament by Paul, never by Jesus. In the old testament it's condemned in the same verses which condemn eating shellfish, or playing football ( touching pigskin)...

Although there is more verbiage supporting anti gay movement in the scriptures than supporting anti slavery, or desegregation, or woman's suffrage, or temperance or anti war movements.

 

Loosely? lol. Paul clearly includes homosexual behavior in his examples of sinful behavior that is not to characterize a disciple of Jesus.

 

Corinth was the "sin city" of its day. Look what he wrote to the church there because some had been acting like the rest of the culture around them:

 

1 Corinthians 6

⁹ Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, ¹⁰ nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. ¹¹ And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

 

Then in his letter to the church at Rome, he doesn't "loosely" reference it at all. In fact he deliberately notes it as the child of the sin of idolatry.

 

Romans 1

¹⁸ For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. ¹⁹ For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. ²⁰ For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. ²¹ For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. ²² Claiming to be wise, they became fools, ²³ and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

²⁴ Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, ²⁵ because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

²⁶ For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; ²⁷ and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

²⁸ And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. ²⁹ They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, ³⁰ slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, ³¹ foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. ³² Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

 

And Jesus did speak regarding this issue, just not directly. He promoted and affirmed fidelity and marriage between man and woman as God's creation ordinance. Jesus preached that lust is just as much a sin as adultery and he called people to repent of it and turn to God for forgiveness e.g. the woman caught in adultery who was about to be stoned. When she turned to him for salvation, he said "go and sin no more" not "no worries, you did nothing wrong."

 

EDIT: I would also add that the New Testament does isupport women's rights, but it is qualified by God's design for gender roles, and as far as slaves go, read Philemon and make careful notice of Paul's attitude toward Philemon (a Christian slave owner). He doesn't openly chastise him, but it is definitely veiled in it.

[alexey]

I bet Jesus didn't know homosexuality has a significant genetic component.

Also, how does Paul know things? Why is he an authority?

[Corcaigh]

I thought this might contribute to the discussion:

 

[s0crates]

Thanks for that Corcaigh. I think it's exactly on point.

[s0crates]

Christianity became concerned with temporal power when itself was invested with Temporal wealth and possessions, namely the vatican states in the donation of Charlemagne.

I think West would agree with that, and he would consider such imperialism subversive to Christ's message. It's the paradox of Christianity, which we find throughout Christian history since Constantine (Luther saw the problem, but he didn't really solve it, look at mega-churches for example).

Again I would argue that the abolitionist movement in this country which overlapped with violence tendencies more closely mirrors the anti abortion movement ( associated with your Constantinian Christians) than the peace marches on Washington DC ( associated with your prophetic Christians).. As does the women's suffrage and temperance movements. Even the civil rights movement lead by king.

I can see that , I've always been sympathetic to pro-lifers inasmuch as they are fighting to protect life. West does put the anti-abortionists in the Comstantinian camp though.

My main issue with the anti-abortionists is not their position on that issue but their hypocrisy. They care about the life of the unborn, but they don't consistently support life. How many pro-lifers support war and capital punishment?

What I would be more inclined to support is something like Joseph Bernardin's consistent life ethic, which you can read about here:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consistent_life_ethic

God's cause? How do you intuit civil rights are God's cause?

I didn't intuit it, I inferred it. Who were God's chosen people? The enslaved and oppressed Israelites.

If you think Jesus would have been against social justice and civil rights, then I think you should re-read the gospels.

It didn't become God's cause until nearly 2000 years after Jesus. The bible isn't against slavery... much less segregation. Slavery is referenced in the bible, nowhere does it denounce slavery, much less segregation.

God's cause, as repeatedly explained by Jesus, is peace, love, wisdom, and justice. You cannot seriously think God is on the side of slavery and oppression. . .

Civil rights didn't become God's cause until decades after Martin Luther King jammed civil rights down the nation's throat.

Frankly I find this offensive.

There were plenty of God fearing christians on both sides of that issue, as there were over slavery.

Which proves nothing except that plenty of Christians were wrong.

The problem is s0crates you're not. You name me the issues which you attribute to being ones Jesus spoke out about.... Civil Rights, Temperance, women's suffrage, war protests; Jesus didn't speak out against any of them. much less the gospels.

What do you think "love one another" means? What do you think "turn the other cheek " means?

Worse for your case though, some of the issues you've attributed to the Constantinians and championed by the religious right in this country are actually based upon biblical scriptures. Anti abortion, Anti Gay Marriage etc..

Which scriptures ? The gospels or the old ones which Jesus came to correct? Have you not read the sermon on the mount?

[twa]

which scriptures did he come to correct?

[s0crates]

which scriptures did he come to correct?

You have heard it said __________, but I say to you _________.

[Jumbo]

This is your official Jumbo "don't read this; it's long, the product of a damn outlier, and who cares" PSA. 

 

alexy said: I bet Jesus didn't know homosexuality has a significant genetic component.

 

 

And since god doesn't make mistakes (many men don't, or at lest don't admit it  ) "true" hermaphrodites (see "intersex") are likely the only ones allowed to engage in bisexual sexual acts without it being a sin according to the gospels. People keep getting that wrong.

 

(to all--that was mainly humor---don't derail the thread by posting at length what google just coughed up on "intersex" on my account, please).

 

While of varying intensity in place and time (interesting vagaries, considering), it's been really vital to many of the Christian faith that you put the right thingy (penis) in the right place (vagina) and only the right thingy (penis) in the right place (vagina), and (at least it used to be) "only for the right reason" (reproduction). It's wisdom beyond your understanding. 

 

Some of the time, I just "stand way back", very detached, and "look at it all" (the religious construct of Christianity). And for all its many important positives I also see what seems to me as such a huge circus of nonsense that I tend to thinking it's just part of what/where we are in development as a species. And strive though I may, it's not always a fair or balanced representation on my end.  

 

It's similar to me to our major political parties' characteristics: full of both crap dogma and excellent dogma. Just like people. The Christian bible may not offer much truly original and exclusive (there's many believers who claim otherwise on a number of things) in thought, but it takes a lot of really good notions, gathers them nicely together in a teaching manner (just as innumerable other religious and secular structures have done before and since) and dumps an arkload of dysfunctional and nonsensical crap all over it. But that's a common human tendency if I'm any example. 

 

I do think Christianity likely incurred one serious long-term (think a few more centuries) crippling effect when "they" made too much of this sex stuff (inevitable) such an ingrained part of itself from the beginning--well, along with the obligatory need to claim it's The Only Truth on such things while appearing so clearly so full of "it" on a variety of matters to so many other intelligent and decent people.

 

The unavoidable (as well as chosen) ignorance of the times affecting thought on many matters prior to subsequent advances in knowledge is glaringly human and seems hardly divine (a theme that seems to me to run through the bible like....well, bible stuff).

 

The topic title is a good focus, yet there are so many areas of discussion within it.

 

With this homosexual sex is fundamentally sinful stuff, the other silly sex stuff you can blast it for, the competing political camps with the faith using their same biblical scripture and their same story of a god to support often conflicting and opposing values, the ongoing fractures of non-Catholic Christians v Catholic, and the other battles and variations within "the message" being delivered from pulpits across the land in a multitude of denominations, I could imagine Christianity organizing for a Nicaea sequel at some point (The Greatest Makeover Ever Told, PT II).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Zguy28]

You have heard it said __________, but I say to you _________.

He didn't correct them, he took them to the next level so to speak. I assume you have kids (if not, go with me)? When you raise and instruct them you have expectations. Do you instruct with the intent that they only conform on the outside and just follow the rules outwardly? Or do you instruct them with the intent (and hope) that they are written on their heart (inward change)? Do you want them to obey out of mere duty or out of love and from the heart? That's what the Sermon on the Mount is about and what Jesus is calling people to. Its why he accused the Jewish leaders and teachers of being "whitewashed tombs". Clean on the outside, but unclean on the inside.

[Predicto]

My 2 cents.

 

 

I think there are two types of Christians, but not exactly in the way that West sees it.

 

I see one type of Christian that tries to live their life as they believe Christ intended.  They may be conservative like Zguy28, they may be liberal like ASF, they may be Catholic or Protestant or Orthodox, but they are sincere and they are thoughtful and they are doing their best to do right as they see it.

 

The other type of Christian is not really religious.  He or she is tribalist.  They are Christians because it is what they were raised by their parents, or what church they joined when they moved somewhere, but they don't think about the words of the bible except to the extent that some of the the words when cherry picked can be used to support the social views and prejudices that they already carry. They don't hate gay people or support wars or fear Muslims or whatever because they genuinely believe that is what Jesus taught.  They don't think about what Jesus taught.  They do it because they oppose everyone and everything that is not a part of their tribe or that has values different than their tribe currently has.   Christianity to them is no different than politics, or rooting for a sports team, or any other form of self identification.

 

Virtually every single person on FreeRepublic claims to be a devout Christian, but they are not devout.  They are committed to the cause and they are fervent, but they are not devout.   Because they don't think.  They just react. 

[JMS]

Loosely? lol. Paul clearly includes homosexual behavior in his examples of sinful behavior that is not to characterize a disciple of Jesus.

 

Or at least he equates Homosexuals with Tax collectors and  rich men who,  Jesus said won't inherit the kingdom of heaven either.  In fact Jesus says Matthew 5:3  "blessed are the poor in spirit,  they shall inherit the kingdom of heaven". so does that mean we should deny marriage and systemically discriminate against all but the poor in spirit?   Non "poor in spirit" behavior is "an example of sinful behavior" ?  Since only they shall inherit the kingdom of heaven?

..

 

⁹ Or do you not know that the (#1)unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the (#2)sexually immoral, nor (#3)idolaters, nor (#4)adulterers, nor (#5)men who practice homosexuality, ^(#6)nor thieves, (#7)nor the greedy, nor (#8)drunkards, nor (#9)revilers, nor (#10)swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. ¹¹ And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

 

So that's what I would call loosely...   because of these 10 categories of folks who "won't inherit the kingdom of God",  how many do we as a society deny the right to get married too?   None but homosexuals.....    How many face absolutely ZERO systemic condemnation,   about half ( #2, #3, #7, #9,  probable #4 )...   Hell Bill Clinton filled about half those catagories and we elected him President, Twice.

 

Then in his letter to the church at Rome, he doesn't "loosely" reference it at all. In fact he deliberately notes it as the child of the sin of idolatry.

 

Romans 1

¹⁸ For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.

( Liers shouldn't get Married?)

 

¹⁹ For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. ²⁰ For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. ²¹ For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. ²² Claiming to be wise, they became fools, ²³ and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

( Pagans,  Buddhists,  Hindus, and Agnostics shouldn't be allowed to get married? )

²⁴ Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, ²⁵ because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.

²⁶ For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; ²⁷ and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

So that's not a condemnation of Homosexuality... That's saying God imposed homoseduality on heterosexual folks exhibiting Pagans,  Buddhists,  Hindus, and Agnostics tendencies as a punishment. God gave them up.... It wouldn't be much of a punishment if he imposed homosexual tendencies on homosexuals now would it?

 

²⁸ And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. ²⁹ They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, ³⁰ slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, ³¹ foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. ³² Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them.

 

Again not talking about Homosexuals here.. talking about  Pagans,  Buddhists,  Hindus, and Agnostics  The folks which god punished by giving them up to Homosexual tendencies.

 

And Jesus did speak regarding this issue, just not directly. He promoted and affirmed fidelity and marriage between man and woman as God's creation ordinance. Jesus preached that lust is just as much a sin as adultery and he called people to repent of it and turn to God for forgiveness e.g. the woman caught in adultery who was about to be stoned. When she turned to him for salvation, he said "go and sin no more" not "no worries, you did nothing wrong."

 

Before that Jesus said,  let he who is without sin cast the first stone...   And nobody on the religious right is saying we should deny civil marriage to adulterers...   

 

Hell in Matthew 5 : 27   Jesus says anybody who looks lustfully has already committed Adultery......   So I would say a pretty broad segment of the population of earth are therefore adulterers...   and we don't deny any of them marriage.

[JMS]

I didn't intuit it, I inferred it. Who were God's chosen people? The enslaved and oppressed Israelites. 

If you think Jesus would have been against social justice and civil rights, then I think you should re-read the gospels. 

 

First off,  Being God's chosen people isn't a trophy.. it's a burden.   Look at the hardships god has imposed upon the Jews historically. God didn't use his great powers to give Jews social justice,  still hasn't with all the anti semitism still rife in the world. And they are his "chosen people", chosen to carry that burden.

 

Second off,   of coarse I as a Catholic I believe good works is a way of exercising / demonstrating my faith... and Jesus would have been on the side of Social Justice...  But you just lost about 90% of all the protestant Christians in this country who don't believe good works are necessary for salvation....  Likely including your Dr. West.

 

God's cause, as repeatedly explained by Jesus, is peace, love, wisdom, and justice. You cannot seriously think God is on the side of slavery and oppression. . .

peace, love, wisdom, and justice? Nothing vague about that.

We should line up all christians and non christians and ask whom amongst you is for peace, love, wisdom and justice, and those against stand over here next to Horshack.

I would ague if asked to name "god's cause" no Christian would answer "peace, love, wisdom, and justice"...

The reality is Slavery is condoned in the bible.. both old testiment and new.

 

However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you.

If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom.

When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again.

New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+12%3A47%2CLuke+12%3A48&version=NRSVCE

That slave who knew what his master wanted, but did not prepare himself or do what was wanted, will receive a severe beating.. "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given."

Civil rights didn't become God's cause until decades after Martin Luther King jammed civil rights down the nation's throat.

 

Frankly I find this offensive.

It is offensive.. but it's also historical fact. Who do you think the Klu Klux Klan was made up of? It was a Christian organization!... There was no consensus amongst Christians for civil rights until relatively recently.. certainly that conconsensus post dates the actual federal civil rights bill of 1968 which Martin Luther King Jr. paid for with his life.

What do you think "love one another" means? What do you think "turn the other cheek " means?

It's not important what I think it means.. What's important is

it means different things to different christian groups. None of which describe that as being the defining statement of their faith.

 

Worse for your case though, some of the issues you've attributed to the Constantinians and championed by the religious right in this country are actually based upon biblical scriptures. Anti abortion, Anti Gay Marriage etc..

Which scriptures ? The gospels or the old ones which Jesus came to correct?

Gospels baby...

As Zguy28 already pointed out there are a number of passages in the gospels which are used to justify anti homosexual activities.

And as far as anti abortion goes I'm guessing

Matthew 19:18: "You shall not murder", would be high on their list.

Have you not read the sermon on the mount?

Which version Matthew 5, 6 and 7, or

Luke 6:17–49

[JMS]

I bet Jesus didn't know homosexuality has a significant genetic component.

Also, how does Paul know things? Why is he an authority?

Hearing it from paul is like hearing it from Jesus.. We know this because Paul has told us so... errr because God has told paul so, and paul told us that... Credentials? St Paul doesn't need any stinking letters of Credentials..

2 Corinthians 3

Paul was a very important early church leader... When he stopped hunting down and murdering Christians in an effort to purify the Jewish religion in his role as a pharisees (St. Paul started out as a pharisees,  a group of Jewish folks dedicated to strict observance of Jewish tradition who targeted Jewish Christians in the early church period after Jesus.).. St Paul  got a talking too from God on the road to Damascus and stopped persecuting Christians and joined them.   Turned out he had a great head for organization, converting folks, and a keen grasp for what Jesus actually intended. Which was down right miraculous given Paul never met Jesus.. Paul was like the marketing genus of early Christianity. Thus St. Paul who was learned, a wealthy Roman Citizen, and Jewish played a huge role in expanding the religion outside of it's mostly jewish roots and into the broader pagan Roman citizenry.

Paul gave us and taught the "new covenant", one which replaced the old testament or "old covenant"... one where perspective Christians could convert with getting water sprinkled on their heads (aka John the Baptist), rather than their penis's choped off.  Genius!!   Paul who also spoke and wrote Greek translated the gospels into a language most of the Roman citizenry could consume.. Greek. As such St. Paul was responsible for greatly increasing the appeal of the early Christian religion..

And as you can imagine, greatly changed doctrine too from the time of Jesus, which the new formerly pagan Roman community found acceptable if not appealing. I mean Jesus considered himself a jew, he lived, spoke, taught amongst jews. Paul is really the one who broke Christianity away from a sect of Judaism into it's own religion..

[s0crates]

Which version Matthew 5, 6 and 7, or

Luke 6:17–49

Let's start with the passages where there is close correspondence.

[JMS]

He didn't correct them, he took them to the next level so to speak.

St Paul didn't correct the covenant between god and the jewish people.. He replaced it. He created a new covenant. The covenant between God and the Christian peoples.

[s0crates]

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.

I was hoping you'd post in this thread. I appreciate your responses , although I don't entirely agree with your position.

The subtle and nuanced responses you give suggest to me a certain sincerity, an honest effort at intellectual integrity. It is a happy change from the sort of willful ignorance you sometimes encounter in religious dialogue.

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.

You do well to focus on agape love, as it is the very essence of Christianity. We would do well to get clear on it (and some Christians, not you, would do well to begin with acknowledging it). If Jesus says no other commandment is more important than loving one another, and if we are Christians, then we better take notice.

Obviously agape love is not romantic/emotional love, and I suppose your characterization of what agape love is about is not far off the mark.

My understanding is that I am to love my neighbor as myself, and I am to love people as Jesus did. That is clearly stated.

I guess the question is: How would Jesus show his love for the sinner? How would he show his love for the poor, the oppressed, the sick , the hungry?

It seems quite clear that Jesus called us to do the same.

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.

I think that you have a good point about the danger of marrying faith and politics. I think we need to keep church and state seperate.

Yet I cannot help but think our values should correspond to our religion (correctly understood), and our political institutions should correspond with our values.

[JMS]

Let's start with the passages where there is close correspondence.

Ok, that would be Matthew, which actually occurs on a mount, rather than next to a lake...

The point is s0crates, you are going to have a hard time pointing to a single chapter or verse in the bible and get any consensus among Christians that this is what the bible really means...

Constantine tried that in 321 ad and he needed an army, and empire and several hundred hears to gain consensus... on the page long creed which still isn't included in the bible today.

The line drawn as prophetic and Constitinians is historically nonsensical.. 90+% of all Christians today in the US subscribe to the Nicene Creed and that number is probable larger internationally. And the Nicene creed was emperor Constantine's greatest contribution to Christianity.. ( organizing the church council, and setting the goal of a unifying statement ).. And I would argue those who don't subscribe to the Nicene Creed today are more likely to be grouped into what you are calling Constitutions than the folks who do some of whom I would call phrophetory.. So your grouping makes no sense doctrinally, historically, literally, or currently.

I argue the distinction you are really looking for are inward looking Christians and outer looking Christians. Christians who have a personal relationship with God and who are on a personal journey to salvation... or those who are in a group going to salvation together... only that whole "social activism thing" which your good doctor is hoping to re-instill, is really a property of those outward looking Christian groups who he puts in the bad boy camp... and always have been... The issues change but those christians willing to get in yourface and tell you you are wrong don't change.. They are the same group of folks....

We inward looking Christians, really just try to concentrate on ourselves and not judge all the rest of you heathen's. We have our hands full already. The Constantinians or the folks who take responsibility for their brothers salvation as a community seeking salvation are always the ones more comfortable getting out the torches and axes literally, and getting in folks faces to make their points.

Are they always right... no... have they been mostly right... maybe not... have at times their social activism paid dividends and moved the football down the field with a cloud of dust.. sure.. and they pissed off a lot of folks doing it too. Just like the religious right is doing today.

The idea that all the folks on the religious right are "bad christians" is preposterous and.....

This guy Dr. West is trying to address 2000 years of contentious history with the sophistication of pixie sticks and lincoln logs. It's really nonsensical.

[s0crates]

He didn't correct them, he took them to the next level so to speak. I assume you have kids (if not, go with me)? When you raise and instruct them you have expectations. Do you instruct with the intent that they only conform on the outside and just follow the rules outwardly? Or do you instruct them with the intent (and hope) that they are written on their heart (inward change)? Do you want them to obey out of mere duty or out of love and from the heart? That's what the Sermon on the Mount is about and what Jesus is calling people to. Its why he accused the Jewish leaders and teachers of being "whitewashed tombs". Clean on the outside, but unclean on the inside.

Frankly this sound more like Aristotle than Jesus (virtue is habit, conduct is only the way to virtue). Not that I disagree, but I think there is more to the sermon than that. You can't just sweep unambiguous commands like "love your enemy" and "turn the other cheek" under the rug.

[s0crates]

St Paul didn't correct the covenant between god and the jewish people.. He replaced it. He created a new covenant.

I'm not wed to the word "correct." My main point is that Christians ought to prefer the New Testament to the Old in cases where they conflict (and Jesus' own words in cases where they conflict with other parts of the New Testament). No?

[skinsmarydu]

But is there room for we "inwardly looking Christians" who try not to judge, but yet care about our community's health & safety (not necessarily their "salvation")?  I have to hope that the guy on the street I give a couple bucks to will know who really shined on him...hint, it wasn't me.  Just through me.

[s0crates]

The point is s0crates, you are going to have a hard time pointing to a single chapter or verse in the bible and get any consensus among Christians that this is what the bible really means...

You keep saying this, but it is nothing but a mob appeal. The truth is not decided by consensus or majority. Saying people disagree proves nothing.

Don't tell me what most Christians, some Christians, or all Christians think. Tell me who is right and why.

My contention is the more Christ-like you are, the more Christian you are. I think that is a defensible position, although I welcome your continued assault on it.

I argue the distinction you are really looking for are inward looking Christians and outer looking Christians.

No I'm trying to distinguish Christians who heed the gospels from those who don't. I'm taking the WWJD slogan seriously.

Christians who have a personal relationship with God and who are on a personal journey to salvation... or those who are in a group going to salvation together... only that whole "social activism thing" which your good doctor is hoping to re-instill, is really a property of those outward looking Christian groups who he puts in the bad boy camp... and always have been... The issues change but those christians willing to get in yourface and tell you you are wrong don't change.. They are the same group of folks....

We inward looking Christians, really just try to concentrate on ourselves and not judge all the rest of you heathen's. We have our hands full already. The Constantinians or the folks who take responsibility for their brothers salvation as a community seeking salvation are always the ones more comfortable getting out the torches and axes literally, and getting in folks faces to make their points.

Your distinction is clear, although I think it is tangential to West's point, whereas you seem to think it is what he (or I?) is trying to say. I'm not even sure you've made an effort to understand the position you attack.

That said, I think you can justify the view that Christianity tells us to give no thought to the world or tomorrow , and as I said earlier, I think that is a problem for West. I myself find that view preposterous.

The idea of ignoring the world sounds to me like apathy at best, and maybe even outright nihilism. I'm not putting my eggs in that basket.

I don't think scripture commits you to that interpretation though. In fact I think the repeated mentions of charity and reaping what you sow flat out contradict the idea of neglecting the world.

The idea that all the folks on the religious right are "bad christians" is preposterous and.....

I find it is plainly obvious that they are (generally speaking) far from being Christ-like (look how many of them oppose the poor and favor war, for two of numerous examples). I do not hesitate to call them hypocrites.

This guy Dr. West is trying to address 2000 years of contentious history with the sophistication of pixie sticks and lincoln logs. It's really nonsensical.

Might as well throw in an ad hominem for good measure, huh?

[skinsmarydu]

And to think I asked my husband one day what the heck a degree in philosophy was worth...?   He went on for an hour, and I got it.

Now I really get it. 

I totally agree, s0crates.  WWJD is a policy of sorts.  It kind of goes back to the empathy thread, how you "are" on the inside should be reflected on the outside.

Hypothetical: 

Going through the drive thru, someone asks you for some money for something to eat, but all you've got is a card, no cash.  Offer to buy them something on your order, and bring it back around to them.  It ain't that hard.

[s0crates]

skinsmarydu-

Thank you.

I'm appreciating your posts in this thread, by the way. You seem to say what I want to say, but with a conciseness and clarity I lack.