Constantinian Christianity vs. Prophetic Christianity

[Zguy28]

Exactly. So then my issue is whether or not Christians are being Loving.

 

And that is a great question. Which is why earlier I spoke of agape and what that means.

 

Let's circle around. Does Dr. West's two groups both use gov't as the means to accomplish their ends?  If so, what makes one side different than the other? Can we be "unloving" if we (with good intentions) cause somebody to be dependent on a system, such as our welfare systems are always accused of doing?

 

Btw, I agree with welfare programs to a certain extent (with strict accountability).

[alexey]

...

welfare systems are always accused of doing?

Btw, I agree with welfare programs to a certain extent (with strict accountability).

Accused is the key word there.

"strict accountability" is can understood as wanting to shame people for getting help. There seems to be an expectation that good habits magically appear when people reach sufficient levels of suffering and humiliation.

[s0crates]

And that is a great question. Which is why earlier I spoke of agape and what that means.

I take heart that you seem to agree with the claim that Christianity is a religion of love.

Let's circle around. Does Dr. West's two groups both use gov't as the means to accomplish their ends?

I think you have a good challenge to West's argument here. As you suggested earlier, a Christian might worry West and other liberal theologians (as well as the Christian Right) make an idol of a particular political party at the expense of their faith.

West is sensitive to this concern. As I mentioned earlier, he insists that "democracy is not [his] idol," that he is committed to it, but his "Christian convictions are deeper."

West points out that Jesus would seperate his message from politics, "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's." He goes as far as to say that the separation of church and state is a prophetic Christian idea, whereas Constantinian Christianity has been corrupted by state power.

You suggest that maybe both sides are guilty of the same kind of political corruption of faith that West attributes to only one side. It's a fair challenge, I think, to ask if West isn't applying a double-standard.

If so, what makes one side different than the other?

I think the difference is that one side is appealing to the Christian message of love and the other side is subverting it. West seems to think the Constantinians are the idolaters, because they are the one's ignoring prophecy.

"The Christian church became increasingly corrupted by state power, religious rhetoric was often used to justify imperial aims and conceal the prophetic heritage of Christianity . . . The corruption of a faith fundamentally based on tolerance and compassion by the strong arm of imperial authoritarianism invested Christianity with an insidious schizophrenia with which it has been battling . . . The terrible merger of church and state has been behind so many of the church's worst violations of Christian love and justice . . . Don't the teachings of Jesus suggest, at the least, a suspicion of unrivaled and unaccountable wealth and status? Are not empires the occasion of idolatry run amok? . . . Where are the Christian voices outraged at the greed of corporate elites while millions of children live in poverty?"

West's answer seems to be that the Constantinians are the idolaters, and the prophetics stand in opposition to their idolatry.

Can we be "unloving" if we (with good intentions) cause somebody to be dependent on a system, such as our welfare systems are always accused of doing?

This is a fair question. Perhaps there is a certain un-Christian injustice in welfare programs, a kind of unfairness, or giving people better than they deserve.

I could counter this in two ways:

1) Whatever injustice you find in welfare pales in comparison to the injustice of the way wealth is distributed (The 225 richest individuals have as much wealth as 47% of the world's population). What would Jesus say about the chances of those 225 getting into heaven?

2) Christian mercy and non-judgement are also relevant here. Jesus might tell the poor man to sow seeds, but I doubt he'd let him starve. I imagine he'd say, "Here is some bread (ask and you shall receive, give to everyone who asks), now stop being a sloth."

[Zguy28]

I take heart that you seem to agree with the claim that Christianity is a religion of love.

I think you have a good challenge to West's argument here. As you suggested earlier, a Christian might worry West and other liberal theologians (as well as the Christian Right) make an idol of a particular political party at the expense of their faith.

West is sensitive to this concern. As I mentioned earlier, he insists that "democracy is not [his] idol," that he is committed to it, but his "Christian convictions are deeper."

West points out that Jesus would seperate his message from politics, "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's." He goes as far as to say that the separation of church and state is a prophetic Christian idea, whereas Constantinian Christianity has been corrupted by state power.

You suggest that maybe both sides are guilty of the same kind of political corruption of faith that West attributes to only one side. It's a fair challenge, I think, to ask if West isn't applying a double-standard.

I think the difference is that one side is appealing to the Christian message of love and the other side is subverting it. West seems to think the Constantinians are the idolaters, because they are the one's ignoring prophecy.

 

I see his point on it too, so my caution is that its easy to think things are right when they line up with your ideology and to think its wrong when they don't. The gay marriage debate is a perfect example, or welfare, or any number of things people think gov't should or shouldn't do.

 

Whatever the gov't however, Christians are called to be subject the rulers, whoever they may be. Unless it tries to force us to disobey God. Such a case is Daniel in the Old Testament or the apostles disobeying the Jewish leaders who told them to stop preaching salvation in Jesus' name alone. Same would go today, I have no right to disobey the gov't because they legalize abortion or they charge fees for grazing cattle. However, when I am forced to perform, participate in, or pay for abortions, I must be in disobedience. The bible is clear on why obedience is good as well. 1) Authorities are ordained by God (even though they sometimes do wrong) so we should respect that they are His agents, it brings Him glory 2) It makes faith attractive to others and helps them find the truth. But I digress.

 

"The Christian church became increasingly corrupted by state power, religious rhetoric was often used to justify imperial aims and conceal the prophetic heritage of Christianity . . . The corruption of a faith fundamentally based on tolerance and compassion by the strong arm of imperial authoritarianism invested Christianity with an insidious schizophrenia with which it has been battling . . . The terrible merger of church and state has been behind so many of the church's worst violations of Christian love and justice . . . Don't the teachings of Jesus suggest, at the least, a suspicion of unrivaled and unaccountable wealth and status? Are not empires the occasion of idolatry run amok? . . . Where are the Christian voices outraged at the greed of corporate elites while millions of children live in poverty?"

 

You would think my fellow conservative baptists would understand this, wouldn't you? I tell my brethren, when they get wrankled over the trends toward immorality in our culture, that they should read baptist and anabaptist history. They wouldn't be so quick to want much to do with the State then. YOu can have good intentions to make a nation righteous like King Josiah, but because human nature is sinful from the womb (I'm not saying "good" isn't possible either, just more times than not, we're "bad"), they will always slide toward sin. The gospel transforms people, not legislation. All legislation can do is vainly hope to contain sinfulness (note: that doesn't mean its useless either, but discernment is needed).

 

West's answer seems to be that the Constantinians are the idolaters, and the prophetics stand in opposition to their idolatry.

 

There can be idolaters on both sides.

 

This is a fair question. Perhaps there is a certain un-Christian injustice in welfare programs, a kind of unfairness, or giving people better than they deserve.

 

Not really what I meant. I was getting at enabling dependencies. There is a balance to be struck. As a church leader we deal with this in benevolence a lot. Many come to the church seeking money or other forms of material helps. You have to be discerning and identify genuine needs and have accountability. Otherwise you could actually do harm by enabling bad things, and that's not love is it? The balance is between liberality in giving and good stewardship resources. Even still, Jesus called followers to err on the side of generousness rather than stewardship.

 

I could counter this in two ways:

1) Whatever injustice you find in welfare pales in comparison to the injustice of the way wealth is distributed (The 225 richest individuals have as much wealth as 47% of the world's population). What would Jesus say about the chances of those 225 getting into heaven?

2) Christian mercy and non-judgement are also relevant here. Jesus might tell the poor man to sow seeds, but I doubt he'd let him starve. I imagine he'd say, "Here is some bread (ask and you shall receive, give to everyone who asks), now stop being a sloth."

 

 

I more or less agree. Their chance is like a camel going through the eye of a needle. He doesn't command Christians to give away all their wealth, but he does call us to be willing to. And if we are not generous, but rather live to ourselves, it says a lot about where our allegiances truly lie, doesn't it? This is stuff that is preached quite regularly in many evangelical churches, but also many times it is not.

[s0crates]

I see his point on it too, so my caution is that its easy to think things are right when they line up with your ideology and to think its wrong when they don't. The gay marriage debate is a perfect example, or welfare, or any number of things people think gov't should or shouldn't do.

I agree with the general point we should not confuse the faith influencing the ideology for the ideology influencing the faith, although I'm unhappy with your particular examples.

Regarding welfare, I think it is evident that Christ teaches we have a moral obligation to the poor.

Regarding homosexuality, I think it is equally evident that He teaches we should be tolerant and non-judgmental towards homosexuals even if we regard them as sinners. We're all lustful.

A better example of West putting his ideology before his faith might be his position on abortion.

I am deeply sympathetic to the moral impulse that life is sacred. As I've said previously, my problem with anti-abortionists is that they are usually not consistently Pro-Life (supporting war and capital punishment, and opposing life sustaining government aid programs). I'm an admirer of Joseph Bernardin's consistent life ethic. I highly recommend you read up on it if you haven't before. (If you have, what do you think of his view ?)

Whatever the gov't however, Christians are called to be subject the rulers, whoever they may be. Unless it tries to force us to disobey God. Such a case is Daniel in the Old Testament or the apostles disobeying the Jewish leaders who told them to stop preaching salvation in Jesus' name alone. Same would go today, I have no right to disobey the gov't because they legalize abortion or they charge fees for grazing cattle. However, when I am forced to perform, participate in, or pay for abortions, I must be in disobedience. The bible is clear on why obedience is good as well. 1) Authorities are ordained by God (even though they sometimes do wrong) so we should respect that they are His agents, it brings Him glory 2) It makes faith attractive to others and helps them find the truth. But I digress.

While I agree with most of your post, I find this part troubling. Could you give me book, chapter, and verse here? "Obey" doesn't sound to me like something Jesus would say, if it were He wouldn't have been persecuted by the empire.

I think we have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws, which you seem to hint at, but then you take it right back. It seems to me Jesus wasn't saying to obey, but instead to disobey in a peaceful and loving way. He was the inspiration for King's passive resistance, and I don't think King got it wrong.

You would think my fellow conservative baptists would understand this, wouldn't you? I tell my brethren, when they get wrankled over the trends toward immorality in our culture, that they should read baptist and anabaptist history. They wouldn't be so quick to want much to do with the State then. YOu can have good intentions to make a nation righteous like King Josiah, but because human nature is sinful from the womb (I'm not saying "good" isn't possible either, just more times than not, we're "bad"), they will always slide toward sin. The gospel transforms people, not legislation. All legislation can do is vainly hope to contain sinfulness (note: that doesn't mean its useless either, but discernment is needed).

Well put.

There can be idolaters on both sides.

Agreed, although I think the majority of idolatrous Christians in America at present are on the Christian Right. One interpretation of West is that he is pushing back against a tide of fundamentalist zealotry on Christian terms.

Not really what I meant. I was getting at enabling dependencies. There is a balance to be struck. As a church leader we deal with this in benevolence a lot. Many come to the church seeking money or other forms of material helps. You have to be discerning and identify genuine needs and have accountability. Otherwise you could actually do harm by enabling bad things, and that's not love is it? The balance is between liberality in giving and good stewardship resources. Even still, Jesus called followers to err on the side of generousness rather than stewardship.

I more or less agree. Their chance is like a camel going through the eye of a needle. He doesn't command Christians to give away all their wealth, but he does call us to be willing to. And if we are not generous, but rather live to ourselves, it says a lot about where our allegiances truly lie, doesn't it? This is stuff that is preached quite regularly in many evangelical churches, but also many times it is not.

I don't only want to focus on our points of disagreement, in fact I basically agree with all you say in these last paragraphs.

[s0crates]

Here's a recent article that talks about Bernardin. He was Pro-Life, and I have zero hesitation labeling him a prophetic Christian.

http://www.religionnews.com/2013/10/24/pope-francis-breathes-new-life-cardinal-bernardins-contested-legacy/

(RNS) The election of Pope Francis in March heralded a season of surprises for the Catholic Church, but perhaps none so unexpected – and unsettling for conservatives – as the re-emergence of the late Chicago Cardinal Joseph Bernardin as a model for the American Catholic future.

While there is no indication that Francis knows the writings of Bernardin, who died in 1996, many say the pope’s remarks repeatedly evoke Bernardin’s signature teachings on the “consistent ethic of life” – the view that church doctrine champions the poor and vulnerable from womb to tomb – and on finding “common ground” to heal divisions in the church.

Ironically, the re-emergence of Bernardin — a man who was admired by a young Chicago organizer named Barack Obama — is exposing the very rifts he sought to bridge, especially among conservatives who thought his broad view of Catholicism was buried with him in Mount Carmel Cemetery outside Chicago.

Francis, for example, repeatedly stresses economic justice and care for the poor as priorities for Catholics, and he warned that the church has become “obsessed” with a few issues, such as abortion, contraception and homosexuality, and needs a “new balance.”

The new pope has also sought to steer the hierarchy away from conservative politics and toward a broad-based view of Catholicism “that is not just top-down but also horizontal” — focused on dialogue in the church and with the wider world.

“The point that (Bernardin’s) consistent ethic makes is exactly the same point that Pope Francis is making – let’s look at the whole picture and not just focus almost exclusively on three or so issues,” said Archbishop Michael Sheehan of Santa Fe, N.M., who had been close friends with Bernardin since the 1970s.

More at link.

[Zguy28]

I agree with the general point we should not confuse the faith influencing the ideology for the ideology influencing the faith, although I'm unhappy with your particular examples.

Regarding welfare, I think it is evident that Christ teaches we have a moral obligation to the poor.

Regarding homosexuality, I think it is equally evident that He teaches we should be tolerant and non-judgmental towards homosexuals even if we regard them as sinners. We're all lustful.

 

I was just using them in general. I think Jesus very clearly teaches a moral obligation to take care of the poor. God is often (more in the Old Testament than New) described in the bible as the Father to orphans and caretaker to widows. In the NT, James writes that religion is proved as true when we take care of orphans and widows. However, Jesus also demonstrates that while it is of great importance to God, it is not as important as God himself (Matthew 26:6-13).

 

And I agree on homosexuality to an extent. "Tolerance and non-judgmental" means different things to different people. As far as homosexuality being a sin no more or no less than...it isn't worse or better than infidelity for instance or in 1 Corinthians 6, a whole list of things. Does tolerance mean we should not follow Jesus in preaching "repent for the kingdom of heaven is near!"? (Matthew 4:17) Or in affirming that God designed marriage from the beginning to be between man and woman exclusively? (Matthew 19) Do we stand against those who would go against what Jesus taught or do we merely pray for them and seek to lead quiet lives and humbly share the Gospel and continue to worship freely? (1 Tim. 2:1-2)

 

If you PM me an email address, I'll send you a sermon I preached on Matthew 7:1-6 (the "no judging" passage). Let me know what you think.

 

Now, as far as obedience to gov't.

 

Matthew 17:24-27

Romans 13

1 Peter 2

 

Here is a very helpful article, that gives a nice summation of it (I don't vouch for everything else on the site). http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-government.html

Here's a recent article that talks about Bernardin. He was Pro-Life, and I have zero hesitation labeling him a prophetic Christian.

http://www.religionnews.com/2013/10/24/pope-francis-breathes-new-life-cardinal-bernardins-contested-legacy/

More at link.

Have you ever heard of Father George Zabelka? Sounds similar. Even though I have deep differences with Rome, and this Pope, I do agree with much of what he has to say (but also disagree with much. But I'm a baptist too! )

[s0crates]

Have you ever heard of Father George Zabelka?

I haven't. Thank you for calling my attention to him.

I'll reply to the rest of your post in a bit, I'm reading about Zabelka now. I think he is another good example of prophetic Christianity, an example made more poignant by his own guilt and effort at repentance.

[s0crates]

Now, as far as obedience to gov't.

Matthew 17:24-27

Romans 13

1 Peter 2

Here is a very helpful article, that gives a nice summation of it (I don't vouch for everything else on the site). http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-government.html

It seems to me that Paul adds a layer of meaning that isn't evident in the Gospels.

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's " I can make sense of, but I'm having a hard time hearing Jesus say, "authorities that exist have been instituted by God."

The implications of the idea that all authority is divinely ordained are only too well known (otherwise why have a reformation?). I credit Jesus with more wisdom than that. I must be missing something.

Even though I have deep differences with Rome, and this Pope, I do agree with much of what he has to say (but also disagree with much. But I'm a baptist too! )

I'm less interested in what you think of the Pope or the Catholic Church than I am in what you think of Bernardin's consistent life ethic.

You say you agree and disagree. Could you be more specific as to where and why?

[alexey]

It seems to me that Paul adds a layer of meaning that isn't evident in the Gospels.

"Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's " I can make sense of, but I'm having a hard time hearing Jesus say, "authorities that exist have been instituted by God."

The implications of the idea that all authority is divinely ordained are only too well known (otherwise why have a reformation?). I credit Jesus with more wisdom than that. I must be missing something.

I interpret that sentence to promote non-resistance and non-violence.

[s0crates]

I interpret that sentence to promote non-resistance and non-violence.

I can see the stories about the tax collectors in the New Testament in that light. These passages are easily interpreted as teaching selflessness, humility, and peace (instead of pride and anger). That interpretation also makes those passages cohere with the general themes of the text.

Yet I'm still bothered by the "all authority is divine" business. I mean consider the implications if we take that literally. Are vicious dictators authorities? Was the Inquisition an authority? I just can't accept the literal meaning of the words "all authority is divine."

I find it puzzling, on par with the bits about wailing and gnashing of teeth, cursing the fig tree, and that bit about denying the Holy Ghost being the only unforgivable sin. This is part of why I can't go all-in with the church or Dr. West (and my not being all-in is why I have tried to defer to arguments of devout Christians here).

I do think Christian scripture (especially the Gospels) is often profound though, and I do believe Christianity has the potential to be an ecumenical force for good in the world. Of course it also has the potential for evil. History gives plenty of evidence of this duality. That's enough reason for me to advance the case for prophetic Christianity as best I can.